@misc{DebreDijkstra2021, author = {Debre, Maria Josepha and Dijkstra, Hylke}, title = {Immune to COVID?}, publisher = {London School of Economics and Political Science}, address = {London}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @incollection{Dumas2021, author = {Dumas, Beno{\^i}t Paul}, title = {Reforms of school supervision in the German L{\"a}nder}, series = {The future of local self-government}, booktitle = {The future of local self-government}, editor = {Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas and Franzke, Jochen and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-56058-4}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-56059-1_19}, pages = {257 -- 273}, year = {2021}, abstract = {While school supervision structures in the German L{\"a}nder were extensively reformed during the last decades, systematic analyses of these reforms are missing. This chapter contributes to this research gap by providing an overview of the implemented reforms of school supervision structures in the German L{\"a}nder. The effects of these reforms are analysed in order to answer the question of whether a convergence of school supervision systems is a result of these reforms. In a first step, a distinction is made to identify system-changing reforms. Although a decrease of the number or a concentration on one school supervision system is not a result of the analysis, it is argued that there is a convergence of school supervision structures, as a clear trend against school supervision systems with lower school supervisory boards can be observed.}, language = {en} } @article{BuschHeinzelKempkenetal.2020, author = {Busch, Per-Olof and Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Kempken, Mathies and Liese, Andrea}, title = {Mind the gap?}, series = {Journal of comparative policy analysis : research and practice}, volume = {24}, journal = {Journal of comparative policy analysis : research and practice}, number = {3}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {London}, issn = {1387-6988}, doi = {10.1080/13876988.2020.1820866}, pages = {230 -- 253}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Many authors have argued that International Public Administration can influence policy-making through their expert authority. The article compares de jure and de facto expert authority of IPAs to evaluate their conformity. It comparatively assesses the two kinds of authority for five important IPAs (BIS, FAO, IMF, OECD and World Bank) active in agriculture or financial policy. It shows that, on average, de jure and de facto authority seem to conform. At the same time, it demonstrates that gaps between de jure and de facto authority exist at the level of the IPAs, the policy areas and the IPAs' addressees}, language = {en} } @article{EsguerraBeckLidskog2017, author = {Esguerra, Alejandro and Beck, Silke and Lidskog, Rolf}, title = {Stakeholder Engagement in the Making}, series = {Global environmental politics}, volume = {17}, journal = {Global environmental politics}, publisher = {MIT Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {1526-3800}, doi = {10.1162/GLEP_a_00390}, pages = {59 -- 76}, year = {2017}, abstract = {A growing number of expert organizations aim to provide knowledge for global environmental policy-making. Recently, there have also been explicit calls for stakeholder engagement at the global level to make scientific knowledge relevant and usable on the ground. The newly established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is one of the first international expert organizations to have systematically developed a strategy for stakeholder engagement in its own right. In this article, we analyze the emergence of this strategy. Employing the concept politics of legitimation, we examine how and for what reasons stakeholder engagement was introduced, justified, and finally endorsed, as well as its effects. The article explores the process of institutionalizing stakeholder engagement, as well as reconstructing the contestation of the operative norms (membership, tasks, and accountability) regulating the rules for this engagement. We conclude by discussing the broader importance of the findings for IPBES, as well as for international expert organizations in general.}, language = {en} } @article{UllmannvonStaden2023, author = {Ullmann, Andreas J. and von Staden, Andreas}, title = {A room full of 'views'}, series = {Journal of conflict resolution}, volume = {68}, journal = {Journal of conflict resolution}, number = {2-3}, publisher = {Sage Publications}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {0022-0027}, doi = {10.1177/00220027231160460}, pages = {534 -- 561}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Quantitative research into the effectiveness of the UN human rights treaty bodies (UNTBs) in eliciting remedial responses from states is impeded by a lack of usable data on how states respond to their decisions. The new Treaty Body Views Dataset (TBVD) aims to fill this gap. It comprises details on all published decisions in individual complaints cases issued by the UNTBs between 1979 and 2019 and matches these with information on their state of compliance. The TBVD can be used for research on the activities of the treaty bodies, the nature of the decisions themselves, or state behavior following a decision. An empirical application illustrates how the TBVD can advance knowledge about the factors that correlate with compliance with adverse UNTB decisions. Results show that the likelihood of implementation hinges critically on decision-level characteristics, and reveal differences and similarities between compliance with UNTB decisions and regional human rights court judgments.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannHellstromRambergetal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Hellstrom, Mikael and Ramberg, Ulf and Reiter, Renate}, title = {Tracing divergence in crisis governance}, series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, volume = {87}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852320979359}, pages = {556 -- 575}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of 'normal governance' and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less - as in Germany and France - on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures. Points for practitioners COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts.}, language = {en} } @article{KrauseGahn2023, author = {Krause, Werner and Gahn, Christina}, title = {Should we include margins of error in public opinion polls?}, series = {European journal of political research}, volume = {Early view}, journal = {European journal of political research}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0304-4130}, doi = {10.1111/1475-6765.12633}, pages = {26}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Public opinion polls have become vital and increasingly visible parts of election campaigns. Previous research has frequently demonstrated that polls can influence both citizens' voting intentions and political parties' campaign strategies. However, they are also fraught with uncertainty. Margins of error can reflect (parts of) this uncertainty. This paper investigates how citizens' voting intentions change due to whether polling estimates are presented with or without margins of error. Using a vignette experiment (N=3224), we examine this question based on a real-world example in which different election polls were shown to nationally representative respondents ahead of the 2021 federal election in Germany. We manipulated the display of the margins of error, the interpretation of polls and the closeness of the electoral race. The results indicate that margins of error can influence citizens' voting intentions. This effect is dependent on the actual closeness of the race and additional interpretative guidance provided to voters. More concretely, the results consistently show that margins of error increase citizens' inclination to vote for one of the two largest contesting parties if the polling gap between these parties is small, and an interpretation underlines this closeness. The findings of this study are important for three reasons. First, they help to determine whether margins of error can assist citizens in making more informed (strategic) vote decisions. They shed light on whether depicting opinion-poll uncertainty affects the key features of representative democracy, such as democratic accountability. Second, the results stress the responsibility of the media. The way polls are interpreted and contextualized influences the effect of margins of error on voting behaviour. Third, the findings of this paper underscore the significance of including methodological details when communicating scientific research findings to the broader public.}, language = {en} } @article{JagtianiWellek2022, author = {Jagtiani, Sharinee L. and Wellek, Sophia}, title = {In the Shadow of Ukraine}, series = {Survival}, volume = {64}, journal = {Survival}, number = {3}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {126962024X}, doi = {10.1080/00396338.2022.2078045}, pages = {29 -- 48}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In 2022, India captured global attention over its response to the war in Ukraine. While calling for both parties' return to diplomacy, India abstained from several United Nations resolutions condemning Russian aggression. For a country that ostensibly subscribes to the values of democracy and territorial integrity, its response appeared frustrating and contradictory, but it is broadly consistent with its long-standing policy of non-alignment. Although India's relationship with China is increasingly contentious, New Delhi is not yet fully convinced that it is in India's interest to swing westwards. The country's relations with Russia and China are deep, complex and substantive. In addition to the military and economic benefits it derives from its connection with Russia, New Delhi and Moscow share an avowed preference for a more equal, multipolar world. India will eventually have to reflect on the extent to which it can sustain its balancing act.}, language = {en} } @article{CohenKrauseAbouChadi2024, author = {Cohen, Denis and Krause, Werner and Abou-Chadi, Tarik}, title = {Comparative vote switching}, series = {The journal of politics}, volume = {86}, journal = {The journal of politics}, number = {2}, publisher = {University of Chicago Press}, address = {Chicago, IL}, issn = {0022-3816}, doi = {10.1086/726952}, pages = {597 -- 607}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Large literatures focus on voter reactions to parties' policy strategies, agency, or legislative performance. While many inquiries make explicit assumptions about the direction and magnitude of voter flows between parties, comparative empirical analyses of vote switching remain rare. In this article, we overcome three challenges that have previously impeded the comparative study of dynamic party competition based on voter flows: we present a novel conceptual framework for studying voter retention, defection, and attraction in multiparty systems, showcase a newly compiled data infrastructure that marries comparative vote switching data with information on party behavior and party systems in over 250 electoral contexts, and introduce a statistical model that renders our conceptual framework operable. These innovations enable first-time inquiries into the polyadic vote switching patterns underlying multiparty competition and unlock major research potentials on party competition and party system change.}, language = {en} } @article{ElsaesserHickmannJinnahetal.2022, author = {Els{\"a}sser, Joshua Philipp and Hickmann, Thomas and Jinnah, Sikina and Oberthur, Sebastian and Van de Graaf, Thijs}, title = {Institutional interplay in global environmental governance}, series = {International environmental agreements: politics, law and economics}, volume = {22}, journal = {International environmental agreements: politics, law and economics}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1567-9764}, doi = {10.1007/s10784-022-09569-4}, pages = {373 -- 391}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Over the past decades, the growing proliferation of international institutions governing the global environment has impelled institutional interplay as a result of functional and normative overlap across multiple regimes. This article synthesizes primary contributions made in research on institutional interplay over the past twenty years, with particular focus on publications with International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. Broadening our understanding about the different types, dimensions, pathways, and effects of institutional interplay, scholars have produced key insights into the ways and means by which international institutions cooperate, manage discord, engage in problem solving, and capture synergies across levels and scales. As global environmental governance has become increasingly fragmented and complex, we recognize that recent studies have highlighted the growing interactions between transnationally operating institutions in the wake of polycentric governance and hybrid institutional complexes. However, our findings reveal that there is insufficient empirical and conceptual research to fully understand the relationship, causes, and consequences of interplay between intergovernmental and transnational institutions. Reflecting on the challenges of addressing regulatory gaps and mitigating the crisis of multilateralism, we expound the present research frontier for further advancing research on institutional interplay and provide recommendations to support policy-making.}, language = {en} }