@article{TjadenHeidland2024, author = {Tjaden, Jasper and Heidland, Tobias}, title = {Did Merkel's 2015 decision attract more migration to Germany?}, series = {European journal of political research}, journal = {European journal of political research}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0304-4130}, doi = {10.1111/1475-6765.12669}, pages = {1 -- 17}, year = {2024}, abstract = {In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to allow over a million asylum seekers to cross the border into Germany. One key concern was that her decision would signal an open-door policy to aspiring migrants worldwide - thus further increasing migration to Germany and making the country permanently more attractive to irregular and humanitarian migrants. This 'pull-effect' hypothesis has been a mainstay of policy discussions ever since. With the continued global rise in forced displacement, not appearing welcoming to migrants has become a guiding principle for the asylum policy of many large receiving countries. In this article, we exploit the unique case study that Merkel's 2015 decision provides for answering the fundamental question of whether welcoming migration policies have sustained effects on migration towards destination countries. We analyze an extensive range of data on migration inflows, migration aspirations and online search interest between 2000 and 2020. The results reject the 'pull effect' hypothesis while reaffirming states' capacity to adapt to changing contexts and regulate migration.}, language = {en} } @article{LundgrenSquatritoSommereretal.2023, author = {Lundgren, Magnus and Squatrito, Theresa and Sommerer, Thomas and Tallberg, Jonas}, title = {Introducing the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset (IPOD)}, series = {The review of international organizations}, volume = {19}, journal = {The review of international organizations}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Boston}, issn = {1559-7431}, doi = {10.1007/s11558-023-09492-6}, pages = {117 -- 146}, year = {2023}, abstract = {There is a growing recognition that international organizations (IOs) formulate and adopt policy in a wide range of areas. IOs have emerged as key venues for states seeking joint solutions to contemporary challenges such as climate change or COVID-19, and to establish frameworks to bolster trade, development, security, and more. In this capacity, IOs produce both extraordinary and routine policy output with a multitude of purposes, ranging from policies of historic significance like admitting new members to the more mundane tasks of administering IO staff. This article introduces the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset (IPOD), which covers close to 37,000 individual policy acts of 13 multi-issue IOs in the 1980-2015 period. The dataset fills a gap in the growing body of literature on the comparative study of IOs, providing researchers with a fine-grained perspective on the structure of IO policy output and data for comparisons across time, policy areas, and organizations. This article describes the construction and coverage of the dataset and identifies key temporal and cross-sectional patterns revealed by the data. In a concise illustration of the dataset's utility, we apply models of punctuated equilibria in a comparative study of the relationship between institutional features and broad policy agenda dynamics. Overall, the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset offers a unique resource for researchers to analyze IO policy output in a granular manner and to explore questions of responsiveness, performance, and legitimacy of IOs.}, language = {en} } @article{TjadenSpoerlein2023, author = {Tjaden, Jasper and Sp{\"o}rlein, Christoph}, title = {How much do "local policies" matter for refugee integration?}, series = {International migration review}, journal = {International migration review}, publisher = {Sage Publications}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {0197-9183}, doi = {10.1177/01979183231205561}, year = {2023}, abstract = {A growing number of studies have recently postulated a so-called local turn in the study of immigrant and refugee integration policy. A fundamental, yet untested, assumption of this body of research is that local (sub-national) policies and administrations shape how migrants and refugees integrate into society. We develop and apply an analytical model using multilevel modeling techniques based on large-N, longitudinal survey data (Nā€‰>ā€‰9000) with refugees (2012-2018) in a highly decentralized country (Germany) to estimate the scope for local policy effects net of individual-level and state- and district-level characteristics. We show that region and district-level variation in integration outcomes across multiple dimensions (employment, education, language, housing, social) is limited (āˆ¼5\%) within 4-8 years after immigration. We find modest variation in policy indicators (āˆ¼10\%), which do not appear to directly translate into outcomes. We discuss implications for the study of local policies and the potential for greater convergence between administrative and political science, interested in governance structures and policy variation, and sociology and economics, interested primarily in integration outcomes.}, language = {en} } @article{HeydenNatho2022, author = {Heyden, Janika and Natho, Stephanie}, title = {Assessing floodplain management in Germany - a case study on nationwide research and actions}, series = {Sustainability}, volume = {14}, journal = {Sustainability}, number = {17}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2071-1050}, doi = {10.3390/su141710610}, pages = {18}, year = {2022}, abstract = {After a long history of floodplain degradation and substantial losses of inundation areas over the last decades, a rethinking of floodplain management has taken place in Germany. Floodplains are now acknowledged as important areas for both biodiversity and society. This transformation has been significantly supported by nationwide research activities. A systematic assessment of the current floodplain management is still lacking. We therefore developed a scheme to assess floodplain management through the steps of identification, analysis, implementation, and evaluation. Reviewing the data and literature on nationwide floodplain-related research and activities, we defined key elements of floodplain management for Germany. We concluded that research activities already follow a strategic nationwide approach of identifying and analyzing floodplains. Progress in implementation is slow, however, and potentials are far from being reached. Nevertheless, new and unique initiatives enable Germany to stay on the long-term path of giving rivers more space and improving floodplain conditions.}, language = {en} } @article{HolthausStockmann2020, author = {Holthaus, Leonie and Stockmann, Nils}, title = {Who makes the world?}, series = {New perspectives}, volume = {28}, journal = {New perspectives}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage Publications}, address = {Thousand Oaks, CA}, issn = {2336-825X}, doi = {10.1177/2336825X20935246}, pages = {413 -- 427}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In this essay, we consider the role of academics as change-makers. There is a long line of reflection about academics' sociopolitical role(s) in international relations (IR). Yet, our attempt differs from available considerations in two regards. First, we emphasize that academics are not a homogenous group. While some keep their distance from policymakers, others frequently provide policy advice. Hence, positions and possibilities of influence differ. Second, our argument is not oriented towards the past but the future. That is, we develop our reflections on academics as change-makers by outlining the vision of a 'FutureLab', an innovative, future forum that brings together different world-makers who are united in their attempt to improve 'the world'. Our vision accounts for current, perhaps alarming trends in academia, such as debates about the (in)ability to confront post-truth politics. Still, it is a (critically) optimistic one and can be read as an invitation for experimentation. Finally, we sympathize with voices demanding the democratization of academia and find that further cross-disciplinary dialogues within academia and dialogues between different academics, civil society activists and policymakers may help in finding creditable solutions to problems such as climate change and populism.}, language = {en} } @article{BubeckKreibichPenningRowselletal.2017, author = {Bubeck, Philip and Kreibich, Heidi and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Botzen, W. J. Wouter and de Moel, H. and Klijn, F.}, title = {Explaining differences in flood management approaches in Europe and in the USA - a comparative analysis}, series = {Journal of flood risk management}, volume = {10}, journal = {Journal of flood risk management}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1753-318X}, doi = {10.1111/jfr3.12151}, pages = {436 -- 445}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Flood risk management in Europe and worldwide is not static but constantly in a state of flux. There has been a trend towards more integrated flood risk management in many countries. However, the initial situation and the pace and direction of change is very different in the various countries. In this paper, we will present a conceptual framework that seeks to explain why countries opt for different flood risk management portfolios. The developed framework utilises insights from a range of policy science concepts in an integrated way and considers, among others, factors such as geographical characteristics, the experience with flood disasters, as well as human behavioural aspects.}, language = {en} }