@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} } @article{Kalczewiak2020, author = {Kalczewiak, Mariusz}, title = {Yiddish Buenos Aires and the struggle to leave the margins}, series = {East European Jewish affairs}, volume = {50}, journal = {East European Jewish affairs}, number = {1-2}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1350-1674}, doi = {10.1080/13501674.2020.1774275}, pages = {115 -- 133}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Yiddish culture developed in Argentina within the context of a self-perception that figured Buenos Aires as a marginal and peripheral locale on the global Yiddish map. Against this backdrop, Argentine Yiddish culturalists argued for the strengthening of local Yiddish culture with a goal of elevating Buenos Aires's status within the international hierarchies of Yiddish culture. Buenos Aires indeed emerged in the 1920s as a producer of Yiddish cultural contents, maintained networks of international cultural contacts with other Yiddish centers, financially supported Eastern European Yiddish establishments, and hoped that these contacts would allow for solving Buenos Aires reputation problems. The pre-World War II preoccupation with the status of Buenos Aires as a center of Yiddish culture provided a basis upon which post-Holocaust discourse of Argentine Jewish responsibility for the maintenance of Yiddish culture was constructed.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Heinzel2021, author = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa}, title = {World Bank staff and project implementation}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{Doerfler2023, author = {D{\"o}rfler, Thomas}, title = {Why rules matter: shaping security council sanctions policy in counterterrorism and beyond}, series = {Journal of global security studies}, volume = {8}, journal = {Journal of global security studies}, number = {1}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {2057-3170}, doi = {10.1093/jogss/ogac041}, pages = {19}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Sanctions are critical to the Security Council's efforts to fight terrorism. What is striking is that the Council's sanctions regimes are subject to detailed sets of rules and decision criteria. The scholarship on human rights in counterterrorism assumes that rights advocacy and court litigation have prompted this development. The article complements this literature by highlighting an unexplored internal driver of legal-regulatory decision-making and explores how mixed-motive interest constellations among Security Council members have affected the extent of committee regulations and the content of decisions taken by sanctions committees. Based on internal documents and diplomatic cables, a comparative analysis of the Iraq sanctions regime and the counterterrorism sanctions regime demonstrates that mixed-motive interest constellations among Security Council members provide incentives to elaborate rules to guide decision-making resulting in legal-regulatory sanctions governance, even if the human rights of targeted individuals are not at stake. For comparative leverage and to assess the limits of the proposed mechanism, the analysis is briefly extended to other sanctions regimes targeting individuals (Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan). The findings have implications for this essential tool of the Security Council to react to threats to peace as diverse as counterterrorism, nonproliferation, and internal armed conflict.}, language = {en} } @article{HeroldLieseBuschetal.2021, author = {Herold, Jana and Liese, Andrea and Busch, Per-Olof and Feil, Hauke}, title = {Why national ministries consider the policy advice of international bureaucracies}, series = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, volume = {65}, journal = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, number = {3}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0020-8833}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqab044}, pages = {669 -- 682}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Scholars of international relations and public administration widely assume that international bureaucracies, in their role as policy advisors, directly influence countries' domestic policies. Yet, this is not true across the board. Why do some countries closely consider the advice of international bureaucracies while others do not? This article argues that international bureaucracies' standing as sources of expertise is crucial. We tested this argument using data from a unique survey that measured prevalent practices of advice utilization in thematically specialized policy units of national ministries in a representative sample of more than a hundred countries. Our findings show that ministries' perceptions of international bureaucracies' expertise, that is, specialized and reliable knowledge, are the key factor. International bureaucracies influence national ministries directly and without the support of other actors that may also have an interest in the international bureaucracies' policy advice. Our analysis also demonstrates that the effects of alternative means of influence, such as third-party pressure and coercion, are themselves partly dependent on international bureaucracies' reputation as experts. The findings presented in this article reinforce the emphasis on expertise as a source of international bureaucracies' influence, and provide a crucial test of its importance.}, language = {en} } @misc{GieblerRuthTanneberg2018, author = {Giebler, Heiko and Ruth, Saskia P. and Tanneberg, Dag}, title = {Why choice matters}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {104}, issn = {1867-5808}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42789}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427891}, pages = {10}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.}, 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{LundgrenTallbergSommereretal.2023, author = {Lundgren, Magnus and Tallberg, Jonas and Sommerer, Thomas and Squatrito, Theresa}, title = {When are international organizations responsive to policy problems?}, series = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, volume = {67}, journal = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, number = {3}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0020-8833}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqad045}, pages = {14}, year = {2023}, abstract = {When are international organizations (IOs) responsive to the policy problems that motivated their establishment? While it is a conventional assumption that IOs exist to address transnational challenges, the question of whether and when IO policy-making is responsive to shifts in underlying problems has not been systematically explored. This study investigates the responsiveness of IOs from a large-n, comparative approach. Theoretically, we develop three alternative models of IO responsiveness, emphasizing severeness, dependence, and power differentials. Empirically, we focus on the domain of security, examining the responsiveness of eight multi-issue IOs to armed conflict between 1980 and 2015, using a novel and expansive dataset on IO policy decisions. Our findings suggest, first, that IOs are responsive to security problems and, second, that responsiveness is not primarily driven by dependence or power differentials but by problem severity. An in-depth study of the responsiveness of the UN Security Council using more granular data confirms these findings. As the first comparative study of whether and when IO policy adapts to problem severity, the article has implications for debates about IO responsiveness, performance, and legitimacy.}, language = {en} } @article{BrenneckeErtugKovacsetal.2022, author = {Brennecke, Julia and Ertug, Gokhan and Kov{\´a}cs, Bal{\´a}zs and Zou, Tengjian}, title = {What does homophily do?}, series = {Academy of Management Annals}, volume = {16}, journal = {Academy of Management Annals}, number = {1}, publisher = {Erlbaum}, address = {Mahwah}, issn = {1941-6520}, doi = {10.5465/annals.2020.0230}, pages = {38 -- 69}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Understanding the consequences of homophily, which is among the most widely observed social phenomena, is important, with implications for management theory and practice. Therefore, we review management research on the consequences of homophily. As these consequences have been studied at the individual, dyad, team, organizational, and macro levels, we structure our review accordingly. We highlight findings that are consistent and contradictory, as well as those that point to boundary conditions or moderators. In conducting our review, we also derive implications for management research from insights gained by research in other disciplines on this topic. We raise specific issues and opportunities for future research at each level, and conclude with a discussion of broader future research directions, both empirical and conceptual, that apply across levels. We hope that our review will open new vistas in research on this important topic.}, language = {en} } @misc{Rothermel2022, author = {Rothermel, Ann-Kathrin}, title = {What anti-gender and anti-vaccines politics have in common}, publisher = {London School of Economics and Political Science}, address = {London}, year = {2022}, language = {en} }