@misc{EsguerraHelmerichRisse2016, author = {Esguerra, Alejandro and Helmerich, Nicole and Risse, Thomas}, title = {Introduction}, series = {Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood: Contesting the New Modes of Governance}, journal = {Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood: Contesting the New Modes of Governance}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan, Cham}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-39871-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-39871-6_1}, pages = {1 -- 22}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The Paris Agreement for Climate Change or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rely on new modes of governance for implementation. Indeed, new modes of governance such as market-based instruments, public-private partnerships or multi-stakeholder initiatives have been praised for playing a pivotal role in effective and legitimate sustainability governance. Yet, do they also deliver in areas of limited statehood? States such as Malaysia or the Dominican Republic partly lack the ability to implement and enforce rules; their statehood is limited. This introduction provides the analytical framework of this volume and critically examines the performance of new modes of governance in areas of limited statehood, drawing on the book's in-depth case studies on issues of climate change, biodiversity, and health.}, language = {en} } @misc{Esguerra2016, author = {Esguerra, Alejandro}, title = {"A Comment That Might Help Us to Move Along"}, series = {Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood : Contesting the New Modes of Governance}, journal = {Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood : Contesting the New Modes of Governance}, publisher = {Cham}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-39871-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-39871-6_2}, pages = {25 -- 46}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This chapter investigates the trajectory of establishing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in the early 1990s as the first private transnational certification organization with an antagonistic stakeholder body. Its main contribution is a micro-analysis of the founding assembly in 1993. By investigating the role of brokers within the negotiation as one institutional scope condition for 'arguing' having occurred, the chapter adopts a dramaturgical approach. It contends that the authority of brokers is not necessarily institutionally given, but needs to be gained: brokers have to prove situationally that their knowledge is relevant and that they are speaking impartially in the interest of progress rather than their own. The chapter stresses the importance of procedural knowledge which brokers provide in contrast to policy knowledge.}, language = {en} } @article{Daviter2017, author = {Daviter, Falk}, title = {Coping, taming or solving}, series = {Policy studies}, volume = {38}, journal = {Policy studies}, number = {6}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0144-2872}, doi = {10.1080/01442872.2017.1384543}, pages = {571 -- 588}, year = {2017}, abstract = {One of the truisms of policy analysis is that policy problems are rarely solved. As an ever-increasing number of policy issues are identified as an inherently ill-structured and intractable type of wicked problem, the question of what policy analysis sets out to accomplish has emerged as more central than ever. If solving wicked problems is beyond reach, research on wicked problems needs to provide a clearer understanding of the alternatives. The article identifies and explicates three distinguishable strategies of problem governance: coping, taming and solving. It shows that their intellectual premises and practical implications clearly contrast in core respects. The article argues that none of the identified strategies of problem governance is invariably more suitable for dealing with wicked problems. Rather than advocate for some universally applicable approach to the governance of wicked problems, the article asks under what conditions different ways of governing wicked problems are analytically reasonable and normatively justified. It concludes that a more systematic assessment of alternative approaches of problem governance requires a reorientation of the debate away from the conception of wicked problems as a singular type toward the more focused analysis of different dimensions of problem wickedness.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Tanneberg2020, author = {Tanneberg, Dag}, title = {Toward a theory of political repression}, series = {The politics of repression under authoritarian rule : how steadfast is the Iron Throne?}, booktitle = {The politics of repression under authoritarian rule : how steadfast is the Iron Throne?}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-35477-0}, issn = {2198-7289}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-35477-0_2}, pages = {9 -- 41}, year = {2020}, abstract = {To ensure political survival, autocrats must prevent popular rebellion, and political repression is a means to that end. However, autocrats face threats from both the inside and the outside of the center of power. They must avoid popular rebellion and at the same time share power with strategic actors who enjoy incentive to challenge established power-sharing arrangements whenever repression is ordered. Can autocrats turn repression in a way that allows trading one threat off against the other? This chapter first argues that prior research offers scant insight on that question because it relies on umbrella concepts and questionable measurements of repression. Next, the chapter disaggregates repression into restrictions and violence and reflects on their drawbacks. Citizens adapt to the restriction of political civil liberties, and violence backfires against its originators. Hence, restrictions require enforcement, and violence requires moderation. When interpreted as complements, it becomes clear that restrictions and violence have the potential to compensate for their respective weaknesses. The complementarity between violence and restrictions turns political repression into a valuable addition to the authoritarian toolkit. The chapter concludes with an application of these ideas to the twin problems of authoritarian control and power-sharing.}, language = {en} } @article{Tanneberg2020, author = {Tanneberg, Dag}, title = {How to measure dictatorship, dissent, and political repression}, series = {The politics of repression under authoritarian rule}, journal = {The politics of repression under authoritarian rule}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-35477-0}, issn = {2198-7289}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-35477-0_3}, pages = {43 -- 75}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This chapter operationalizes the three fundamental concepts of this study. It outlines what counts as authoritarian rule, it explains how to recognize dissent in non-democratic contexts, and it debates how to quantify repression in the shadow of the politicized discourse on human rights. First, the chapter opts to classify every political regime as authoritarian that fails to elect its executive or legislature in free and competitive elections. Second, the chapter proposes to see dissent through the lens of campaigns, i.e., series of connected contentious events that involve large-scale collective action and formulate far-reaching political demands. Finally, after some elaboration on the problems involved in measuring political repression reliably and validly, the chapter turns to rescaled versions of the Human Rights Protection Scores 2.04 and the V-Dem 6.2 political civil liberties index as indicators for violence and restrictions. This choice of indicators of repression is, finally, defended against three central objections: the separability of violence from restrictions, the so-called information paradox, and, finally, differences in the timing of violence and restrictions.}, language = {en} } @misc{Knobloch2021, author = {Knobloch, J{\"o}rn}, title = {Rezension zu: Manow, Philip: (Ent‑)Demokratisierung der Demokratie. - Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2020. - 215 S. - ISBN: 978-3-518-76552-4}, series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : PVS : German political science quarterly / hrsg. vom Vorstand der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\"u}r Politikwissenschaft}, volume = {62}, journal = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : PVS : German political science quarterly / hrsg. vom Vorstand der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\"u}r Politikwissenschaft}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin}, isbn = {978-3-518-12753-7}, issn = {0032-3470}, doi = {10.1007/s11615-020-00292-w}, pages = {171 -- 173}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{DorschDoerfler2014, author = {Dorsch, Christian and D{\"o}rfler, Thomas}, title = {Organized hypocrisy of the international community}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Genozidforschung}, volume = {15}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Genozidforschung}, number = {1-2}, publisher = {Velbr{\"u}ck Wissenschaft}, address = {Weilerswist}, issn = {1438-8332}, doi = {10.5771/1438-8332-2014-1-2-8}, pages = {8 -- 31}, year = {2014}, language = {en} } @article{DoerflerGehring2015, author = {D{\"o}rfler, Thomas and Gehring, Thomas}, title = {Wie internationale Organisationen durch die Strukturierung von Entscheidungsprozessen Autonomie gewinnen}, series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : PVS ; Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\"u}r Politische Wissenschaft. Sonderheft: Internationale Organisationen: Autonomie, Politisierung, interorganisationale Beziehungen und Wandel}, journal = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : PVS ; Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\"u}r Politische Wissenschaft. Sonderheft: Internationale Organisationen: Autonomie, Politisierung, interorganisationale Beziehungen und Wandel}, number = {49}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8452-4851-6}, doi = {10.5771/9783845248516-59}, pages = {54 -- 80}, year = {2015}, language = {de} } @article{Borgnaes2017, author = {Borgn{\"a}s, Kajsa}, title = {Indicators as 'circular argumentation constructs'?}, series = {Environment, Development and Sustainability}, volume = {19}, journal = {Environment, Development and Sustainability}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1387-585X}, doi = {10.1007/s10668-016-9764-0}, pages = {769 -- 790}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This paper is concerned with the normative underpinnings of popular sustainability indicators and country rankings. Attempts to quantify national sustainability in the form of composite indicators and rankings have increased rapidly over past decades. However, questions regarding validity and interpretability remain. This article combines theoretical and statistical tools to explore how input variables in five popular sustainability indicators can be related to different theoretical paradigms: weak and strong sustainability. It is shown that differences in theoretical interpretations affect input variable selection, which in turn affects indicator output. This points towards the risk of indicators becoming a sort of 'circular argumentation construct'. The article argues that sustainability indicators and country rankings must be treated as theoretical just as much as statistical instruments. It is proposed that making underlying normative assumptions explicit, and making input variable selection more clear in a theoretical sense, can enhance indicator validity and usability for policy makers and researchers alike.}, language = {en} } @article{Baumgardt2022, author = {Baumgardt, Iris}, title = {Politisches Denken}, series = {Young Citizens : Handbuch politische Bildung in der Grundschule}, journal = {Young Citizens : Handbuch politische Bildung in der Grundschule}, publisher = {bpb, Bundeszentrale f{\"u}r politische Bildung}, address = {Bonn}, isbn = {978-3-7425-0777-8}, pages = {180 -- 188}, year = {2022}, language = {de} }