@incollection{BabendreierBeyerMai2016, author = {Babendreier, Christian and Beyer, Tobias and Mai, Jana}, title = {Georg B{\"u}chner: Woyzeck}, series = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, booktitle = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {95 -- 120}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @incollection{BachmayerHagerHofer2016, author = {Bachmayer, Rene and Hager, Anna and Hofer, Simone}, title = {Friedrich Schiller: Don Karlos}, series = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, booktitle = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {73 -- 94}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @incollection{BalkInanSenneke2016, author = {Balk, Jennifer and Inan, Aylin and Senneke, Marie}, title = {Yasmina Reza: Der Gott des Gemetzels}, series = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, booktitle = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {205 -- 228}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @incollection{BauschkeBeyerZaake2016, author = {Bauschke, Cedric and Beyer, Karoline and Zaake, David}, title = {Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: Nathan der Weise}, series = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, booktitle = {Politische Bildung im Theater}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {47 -- 71}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @phdthesis{Borgnaes2016, author = {Borgn{\"a}s, Kajsa}, title = {Governing through 'governing images'}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In the debate on how to govern sustainable development, a central question concerns the interaction between knowledge about sustainability and policy developments. The discourse on what constitutes sustainable development conflict on some of the most basic issues, including the proper definitions, instruments and indicators of what should be 'developed' or 'sustained'. Whereas earlier research on the role of (scientific) knowledge in policy adopted a rationalist-positivist view of knowledge as the basis for 'evidence-based policy making', recent literature on knowledge creation and transfer processes has instead pointed towards aspects of knowledge-policy 'co-production' (Jasanoff 2004). It is highlighted that knowledge utilisation is not just a matter of the quality of the knowledge as such, but a question of which knowledge fits with the institutional context and dominant power structures. Just as knowledge supports and justifies certain policy, policy can produce and stabilise certain knowledge. Moreover, rather than viewing knowledge-policy interaction as a linear and uni-directional model, this conceptualization is based on an assumption of the policy process as being more anarchic and unpredictable, something Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) has famously termed the 'garbage-can model'. The present dissertation focuses on the interplay between knowledge and policy in sustainability governance. It takes stock with the practice of 'Management by Objectives and Results' (MBOR: Lundqvist 2004) whereby policy actors define sustainable development goals (based on certain knowledge) and are expected to let these definitions guide policy developments as well as evaluate whether sustainability improves or not. As such a knowledge-policy instrument, Sustainability Indicators (SI:s) help both (subjectively) construct 'social meaning' about sustainability and (objectively) influence policy and measure its success. The different articles in this cumulative dissertation analyse the development, implementation and policy support (personal and institutional) of Sustainability Indicators as an instrument for MBOR in a variety of settings. More specifically, the articles centre on the question of how sustainability definitions and measurement tools on the one hand (knowledge) and policy instruments and political power structures on the other, are co-produced. A first article examines the normative foundations of popular international SI:s and country rankings. Combining theoretical (constructivist) analysis with factor analysis, it analyses how the input variable structure of SI:s are related to different sustainability paradigms, producing a different output in terms of which countries (developed versus developing) are most highly ranked. Such a theoretical input-output analysis points towards a potential problem of SI:s becoming a sort of 'circular argumentation constructs'. The article thus, highlights on a quantitative basis what others have noted qualitatively - that different definitions and interpretations of sustainability influence indicator output to the point of contradiction. The normative aspects of SI:s does thereby not merely concern the question of which indicators to use for what purposes, but also the more fundamental question of how normative and political bias are intrinsically a part of the measurement instrument as such. The study argues that, although no indicator can be expected to tell the sustainability 'truth-out-there', a theoretical localization of indicators - and of the input variable structure - may help facilitate interpretation of SI output and the choice of which indicators to use for what (policy or academic) purpose. A second article examines the co-production of knowledge and policy in German sustainability governance. It focuses on the German sustainability strategy 'Perspektiven f{\"u}r Deutschland' (2002), a strategy that stands out both in an international comparison of national sustainability strategies as well as among German government policy strategies because of its relative stability over five consecutive government constellations, its rather high status and increasingly coercive nature. The study analyses what impact the sustainability strategy has had on the policy process between 2002 and 2015, in terms of defining problems and shaping policy processes. Contrasting rationalist and constructivist perspectives on the role of knowledge in policy, two factors, namely the level of (scientific and political) consensus about policy goals and the 'contextual fit' of problem definitions, are found to be main factors explaining how different aspects of the strategy is used. Moreover, the study argues that SI:s are part of a continuous process of 'structuring' in which indicator, user and context factors together help structure the sustainability challenge in such a way that it becomes more manageable for government policy. A third article examines how 31 European countries have built supportive institutions of MBOR between 1992 and 2012. In particular during the 1990s and early 2000s much hope was put into the institutionalisation of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) as a way to overcome sectoral thinking in sustainability policy making and integrate issues of environmental sustainability into all government policy. However, despite high political backing (FN, EU, OECD), implementation of EPI seems to differ widely among countries. The study is a quantitative longitudinal cross-country comparison of how countries' 'EPI architectures' have developed over time. Moreover, it asks which 'EPI architectures' seem to be more effective in producing more 'stringent' sustainability policy.}, language = {en} } @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{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{EbingerRichter2016, author = {Ebinger, Falk and Richter, Philipp}, title = {Decentralizing for performance? A quantitative assessment of functional reforms in the German Lander}, series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, volume = {82}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852315586916}, pages = {291 -- 314}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In the last 10 years, the governments of most of the German L{\"a}nder initiated administrative reforms. All of these ventures included the municipalization of substantial sets of tasks. As elsewhere, governments argue that service delivery by communes is more cost-efficient, effective and responsive. Empirical evidence to back these claims is inconsistent at best: a considerable number of case studies cast doubt on unconditionally positive appraisals. Decentralization effects seem to vary depending on the performance dimension and task considered. However, questions of generalizability arise as these findings have not yet been backed by more 'objective' archival data. We provide empirical evidence on decentralization effects for two different policy fields based on two studies. Thereby, the article presents alternative avenues for research on decentralization effects and matches the theoretical expectations on decentralization effects with more robust results. The analysis confirms that overly positive assertions concerning decentralization effects are only partially warranted. As previous case studies suggested, effects have to be looked at in a much more differentiated way, including starting conditions and distinguishing between the various relevant performance dimensions and policy fields.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Franzke2016, author = {Franzke, Jochen}, title = {After the Strategic Partnership}, series = {The European Union and Russia}, booktitle = {The European Union and Russia}, publisher = {WeltTrends}, address = {Potsdam}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {9 -- 25}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @article{Friess2016, author = {Frieß, Nina A.}, title = {"From Russia with Blood". Stalinist Repression an the Gulag in Contemporary Crime Fiction}, series = {(Hi-)Stories of the Gulag : fiction and reality}, journal = {(Hi-)Stories of the Gulag : fiction and reality}, isbn = {978-3-8253-6534-9}, pages = {281 -- 302}, year = {2016}, language = {en} }