@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} } @article{PossamaiTurnerRooseetal.2016, author = {Possamai, Adam and Turner, Bryan S. and Roose, Joshua M. and Dagistanli, Selda and Voyce, Malcolm}, title = {"Shari'a" in Cyberspace. A Case Study from Australia}, series = {Sociologica : Italian Journal of Sociology online}, volume = {63}, journal = {Sociologica : Italian Journal of Sociology online}, publisher = {Societ{\~A}  editrice il Mulino}, address = {Bologna}, issn = {1971-8853}, doi = {10.2383/83882}, pages = {143 -- 159}, year = {2016}, abstract = {New forms of communication and greater accessibility of Islamic texts on-line allow Muslims to shape their own religiosity, to become less dependent on established sources of authority, and thereby to become more aware of their own cultural diversity as a community. New practices of transnational Islam, and the growth of new concepts of Muslim identities currently emerging in the on-line community, are relatively free from immediate constraints. This article provides the result of a sociological analysis of three Internet sites in Sydney which deliver on-line fatwas. Even if cyberspace has allowed the Muslim world to be de-territorialised and provides a way for people to distance themselves from traditional communities if they wish, this research points out a variety of approaches, including one case which is aiming at re-localising an Australian Muslim system of values. This case highlights ways in which first generation Muslims are re-territorialising Shari'a in a specific western country.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Usik2016, author = {Usik, Lillia}, title = {A Comparative Analysis of the Frozen Conflicts in the Post-Soviet Space}, series = {The European Union and Russia}, booktitle = {The European Union and Russia}, publisher = {WeltTrends}, address = {Potsdam}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {193 -- 239}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @misc{Wack2016, type = {Master Thesis}, author = {Wack, Christian}, title = {Acceptance criteria as part of the German energy turnaround}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-395173}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {88}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Die vorliegende Arbeit ist eine Fallstudie zum Netzausbauprojekt „Suedlink". Sie gliedert sich demnach in vier wesentliche Abschnitte: 1. In einem theoretischen Teil werden die f{\"u}r diese Arbeit wichtigen Theorien der „Sozialen Akzeptanz" nach W{\"u}stenhagen et al. (2007), der „Schritte der Partizipation" nach M{\"u}nnich (2014) und der Governance-Theorie nach Benz und Dose (2011) erl{\"a}utert. 2. In einem methodischen Teil werden die f{\"u}r diese Arbeit relevanten Methoden diskutiert und kritisch erl{\"a}utert. 3. In einem qualitativ-empirischen Teil werden die Informationen der Experteninterviews ausgewertet und anhand der vorgestellten Theorien eingeordnet. In dem vierten und letzten Teil der Arbeit wird eine empirisch-quantitative Analyse der gesellschaftlichen Akzeptanz gegen{\"u}ber S{\"u}dlink vorgenommen. In dieser Arbeit soll mithilfe qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden zwei Fragen gekl{\"a}rt werden. 1. Welche Governance-Aspekte waren f{\"u}r eine gesetzliche Priorit{\"a}t von Erdkabeln im Ausbau von Hochspannungs{\"u}bertragungsgleichstromleitungen entscheidend? Hierf{\"u}r wurden intensive Dokumentenanalysen und verschiedene Experteninterviews durchgef{\"u}hrt. 2. Die zentrale Fragestellung dieser Arbeit besch{\"a}ftigt sich mit der Frage, inwiefern lokale und individuelle Faktoren die Akzeptanz von Suedlink beeinflussen. Hierbei ist interessant zu sehen, welchen Einfluss der gesetzliche Erdkabelvorrang bei der Akzeptanzbildung der Bev{\"o}lkerung gegen{\"u}ber Suedlink gespielt hat. F{\"u}r die Beantwortung wurde ein Online-survey konzipiert, welcher zwischen M{\"a}rz und Juli 2016 {\"u}ber B{\"u}rgerinitiativen, Landr{\"a}te und soziale Netzwerke verteilt wurde. Nach Abschluss der Datenerhebung wurden dieser unter Verwendung deskriptiv-quantitativer Methoden ausgewertet. Die Auswertung der Umfrage zeigt auf, das Erdkabel alleine keine nennenswerte Akzeptanz schaffen (vgl. dazu Menges und Beyer, 2013). Vielmehr stehen individuell und lokale Faktoren und Kriterien im Vordergrund der Beurteilung. Zum Beispiel spielt die Qualit{\"a}t der Partizipation und Einbindung der B{\"u}rger sowie die N{\"a}he zur Erdverkabelung und die finanzielle Mehrbelastung eine Rolle bei der Beurteilung von Erdkabeln. Zudem wird deutlich, das Befragte aus B{\"u}rgerinitiativen wesentlich kritischer gegen Suedlink allgemein und gegen{\"u}ber Erdkabeln im speziellen sind. Ferner ist signifikant, dass Eigenheimbesitzer jegliche Bauform ablehnen.}, 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{ReusswigBraunHegeretal.2016, author = {Reusswig, Fritz and Braun, Florian and Heger, Ines and Ludewig, Thomas and Eichenauer, Eva and Lass, Wiebke}, title = {Against the wind: Local opposition to the German Energiewende}, series = {Utilities Policy}, volume = {41}, journal = {Utilities Policy}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0957-1787}, doi = {10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.006}, pages = {214 -- 227}, year = {2016}, abstract = {A growing number of local energy conflicts around wind power and power-grid extensions are slowing down the deployment of the German Energiewende. In this paper, a local conflict on wind energy in the state of Baden-W{\"u}rttemberg is analysed in detail. In the little community of Engelsbrand, local opposition against a planned wind park was able to turn around a set of favourable a priori conditions, such as a supporting state government planning process, a local supporter group, a transparent planning process, including a majority vote pro wind energy, and a round table discussion. Distancing itself from the NIMBY-explanation ('Not In My Back Yard'), the paper applies insights from discourse network analysis and micro-sociology in order to study the local conflict dynamics. Special attention is given to the resource mobilisation strategies of the opponents, including social networks, mass and social media use. The paper ends by drawing some general conclusions for the German Energiewende.}, language = {en} } @article{HustedtSeyfried2016, author = {Hustedt, Thurid and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Co-ordination across internal organizational boundaries: how the EU Commission co-ordinates climate policies}, series = {Journal of European public policy}, volume = {23}, journal = {Journal of European public policy}, publisher = {Springer Publishing Company}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1350-1763}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2015.1074605}, pages = {888 -- 905}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Through an analysis of climate policy-making in the European Commission (EU), this article argues that co-ordination in the Commission displays the same characteristics as the co-ordination across ministries in central governments, i.e., the properties of negative co-ordination. The article is based on a survey among Commission officials. Overall, the article reveals that a public administration perspective on the Commission proves invaluable to gain insights on how decisions are made at the European Union level. The article contributes to the emerging literature viewing the Commission as an ordinary bureaucracy - as opposed to a unique supranational organization.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannReiter2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Reiter, Renate}, title = {Decentralization of the French welfare state: from 'big bang' to 'muddling through'}, series = {International Review of Administrative Sciences}, volume = {82}, journal = {International Review of Administrative Sciences}, number = {2}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {0.1177/0020852315583194}, pages = {255 -- 272}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This article analyses the decentralization of the French welfare state focusing on the transfer of the Revenu minimum d'insertion (RMI) welfare benefit to the departments in 2003 and 2004. We map and explain the effects of the reform on the system and performance of the subnational provision of welfare tasks. To evaluate the impact of decentralization on the RMI-related action of the departments, we carry out a qualitative document analysis and use data from two case studies. The RMI decentralization offers an exemplary insight into the incremental implementation of French decentralization. We find many unintended effects in terms of the performance and outcome of the subnational welfare provision. This is traced back to the combining of institutional and policy reforms and the inadequate translation of high political expectations into an inadequate action programme both resulting in excessive demands on the local actors. Points for practitioners The decentralization of public tasks is associated with high expectations in terms of the effects on the performance of public services and public governance on the subnational levels. For an in-depth measure the range of administrative performance and political systems effects should be taken into account. We propose a five-dimensional scheme allowing for the determination of decentralization effects on the resource input to and the operative output of subnational public services, on the horizontal coordination between subnational task holders and the affected non-public stakeholders, on the vertical intergovernmental coordination, and on the democratic accountability of subnational authorities.}, 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} } @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} }