@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{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} } @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} } @techreport{DebreSommerer2023, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Debre, Maria Josepha and Sommerer, Thomas}, title = {Weathering the storm?}, series = {IGCC series on authoritarian regimes and international organizations}, journal = {IGCC series on authoritarian regimes and international organizations}, publisher = {UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation}, address = {La Jolla, CA}, pages = {38}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Democratization scholars are currently debating if we are indeed witnessing a third wave of autocratization. While this has led to an extensive debate about the future of the liberal international order, we still know relatively little about the consequences of autocratization for international organizations (IOs). In this article, we explore to what extent autocratization has led to changes in the composition of IO membership. We propose three different ways of conceptualizing autocratization of IO membership. We argue that we should move away from a dichotomous understanding of regime type and regime change, but rather focus on composition of subregime types to understand current developments. We build on updated membership data for 73 IOs through 2020 to map membership configurations based on the V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index. Contrary to current debates on the crisis of the liberal order, we find that many IOs are not (yet) affected by broad autocratization of their membership that would endanger democratic majorities or overall democratic densities. However, we also observe the disappearance of formerly homogenous democratic clubs due to democratic backsliding in a number of European and Latin American IO member states, as well as a return of autocratic clubs in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa. These findings have important implications for the broader research agenda on international democracy promotion and human right protection as well as the study of legitimacy and the effectiveness of international organizations.}, language = {en} } @article{HaenelBratu2021, author = {H{\"a}nel, Hilkje Charlotte and Bratu, Christine}, title = {Varieties of hermeneutical injustice}, series = {Moral philosophy and politics}, volume = {8}, journal = {Moral philosophy and politics}, number = {2}, publisher = {de Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2194-5616}, doi = {10.1515/mopp-2020-0007}, pages = {331 -- 350}, year = {2021}, abstract = {In this paper, we have two goals. First, we argue for a blueprint for hermeneutical injustice that allows us to schematize existing and discover new varieties of hermeneutical injustices. The underlying insight is that Fricker provides both a general concept of hermeneutical injustice and a specific conception thereof. By distinguishing between the general concept and its specific conceptions, we gain a fruitful tool to detect such injustices in our everyday lives. Second, we use this blueprint to provide a further example of hermeneutical injustice that draws our attention to yet another distinction: Some hermeneutical injustices result from a lack or distortion in the collective conceptual resource and some are due to problems in the application of existing concepts. We argue that to combat hermeneutical injustices, we have to make sure not only that individuals have accurate concepts at their disposal but that they have the capabilities to use these concepts adequately.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Elsaesser2023, author = {Els{\"a}sser, Joshua Philipp}, title = {United Nations beyond the state? Interactions of intergovernmental treaty secretariats in global environmental governance}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-62165}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-621651}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xi, 204}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Within the context of United Nations (UN) environmental institutions, it has become apparent that intergovernmental responses alone have been insufficient for dealing with pressing transboundary environmental problems. Diverging economic and political interests, as well as broader changes in power dynamics and norms within global (environmental) governance, have resulted in negotiation and implementation efforts by UN member states becoming stuck in institutional gridlock and inertia. These developments have sparked a renewed debate among scholars and practitioners about an imminent crisis of multilateralism, accompanied by calls for reforming UN environmental institutions. However, with the rise of transnational actors and institutions, states are not the only relevant actors in global environmental governance. In fact, the fragmented architectures of different policy domains are populated by a hybrid mix of state and non-state actors, as well as intergovernmental and transnational institutions. Therefore, coping with the complex challenges posed by severe and ecologically interdependent transboundary environmental problems requires global cooperation and careful management from actors beyond national governments. This thesis investigates the interactions of three intergovernmental UN treaty secretariats in global environmental governance. These are the secretariats of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. While previous research has acknowledged the increasing autonomy and influence of treaty secretariats in global policy-making, little attention has been paid to their strategic interactions with non-state actors, such as non-governmental organizations, civil society actors, businesses, and transnational institutions and networks, or their coordination with other UN agencies. Through qualitative case-study research, this thesis explores the means and mechanisms of these interactions and investigates their consequences for enhancing the effectiveness and coherence of institutional responses to underlying and interdependent environmental issues. Following a new institutionalist ontology, the conceptual and theoretical framework of this study draws on global governance research, regime theory, and scholarship on international bureaucracies. From an actor-centered perspective on institutional interplay, the thesis employs concepts such as orchestration and interplay management to assess the interactions of and among treaty secretariats. The research methodology involves structured, focused comparison, and process-tracing techniques to analyze empirical data from diverse sources, including official documents, various secondary materials, semi-structured interviews with secretariat staff and policymakers, and observations at intergovernmental conferences. The main findings of this research demonstrate that secretariats employ tailored orchestration styles to manage or bypass national governments, thereby raising global ambition levels for addressing transboundary environmental problems. Additionally, they engage in joint interplay management to facilitate information sharing, strategize activities, and mobilize relevant actors, thereby improving coherence across UN environmental institutions. Treaty secretariats play a substantial role in influencing discourses and knowledge exchange with a wide range of actors. However, they face barriers, such as limited resources, mandates, varying leadership priorities, and degrees of politicization within institutional processes, which may hinder their impact. Nevertheless, the secretariats, together with non-state actors, have made progress in advancing norm-building processes, integrated policy-making, capacity building, and implementation efforts within and across framework conventions. Moreover, they utilize innovative means of coordination with actors beyond national governments, such as data-driven governance, to provide policy-relevant information for achieving overarching governance targets. Importantly, this research highlights the growing interactions between treaty secretariats and non-state actors, which not only shape policy outcomes but also have broader implications for the polity and politics of international institutions. The findings offer opportunities for rethinking collective agency and actor dynamics within UN entities, addressing gaps in institutionalist theory concerning the interaction of actors in inter-institutional spaces. Furthermore, the study addresses emerging challenges and trends in global environmental governance that are pertinent to future policy-making. These include reflections for the debate on reforming international institutions, the role of emerging powers in a changing international world order, and the convergence of public and private authority through new alliance-building and a division of labor between international bureaucracies and non-state actors in global environmental governance.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Dannemann2024, author = {Dannemann, Udo}, title = {Understanding neoliberal subjectification}, series = {Economy, society and politics : socio-economic and political education in schools and universities}, booktitle = {Economy, society and politics : socio-economic and political education in schools and universities}, editor = {Fridrich, Christian and Hagedorn, Udo and Hedtke, Reinhold and Mittnik, Philipp and Tafner, Georg}, publisher = {Springer Fachmedien}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-42524-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-42525-8_10}, pages = {217 -- 236}, year = {2024}, abstract = {The contribution explores how an understanding of neoliberal subjectification in socio-economic education can serve to counteract the trend marketisation of democracy. Drawing on Foucault's lectures on biopolitics and Brown's current analysis of neoliberalism, it lays out a sociological explanation that treats the idea of homo economicus as a structuring element of our society and outlines the threat this poses to the liberal democratic order. The second part of the contribution outlines - through immanent critique - an ideology-critical analytical competence that uses key problems to illuminate socially critical perspectives on social reality. The objective is to challenge some of the foundations of social order (Salomon, D. Kritische politische Bildung. Ein Versuch. In B. Widmaier \& Overwien, B. (Hrsg.), Was heißt heute kritische politische Bildung? (S. 232-239). Wochenschau, 2013) in pursuit of the ultimate objective of an educated and assertive citizenry.}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerBuzogany2023, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Buzog{\´a}ny, Aron}, title = {Unboxing international public administrations}, series = {The American review of public administration}, volume = {53}, journal = {The American review of public administration}, number = {1}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Thousand Oaks, Calif.}, issn = {0275-0740}, doi = {10.1177/02750740221136488}, pages = {23 -- 35}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Recent debates in international relations increasingly focus on bureaucratic apparatuses of international organizations and highlight their role, influence, and autonomy in global public policy. In this contribution we follow the recent call made by Moloney and Rosenbloom in this journal to make use of "public administrative theory and empirically based knowledge in analyzing the behavior of international and regional organizations" and offer a systematic analysis of the inner structures of these administrative bodies. Changes in these structures can reflect both the (re-)assignment of responsibilities, competencies, and expertise, but also the (re)allocation of resources, staff, and corresponding signalling of priorities. Based on organizational charts, we study structural changes within 46 international bureaucracies in the UN system. Tracing formal changes to all internal units over two decades, this contribution provides the first longitudinal assessment of structural change at the international level. We demonstrate that the inner structures of international bureaucracies in the UN system became more fragmented over time but also experienced considerable volatility with periods of structural growth and retrenchment. The analysis also suggests that IO's political features yield stronger explanatory power for explaining these structural changes than bureaucratic determinants. We conclude that the politics of structural change in international bureaucracies is a missing piece in the current debate on international public administrations that complements existing research perspectives by reiterating the importance of the political context of international bureaucracies as actors in global governance.}, language = {en} } @book{OPUS4-62304, title = {Tracing value change in the international legal order}, editor = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285583-1}, doi = {10.1093/oso/9780192855831.001.0001}, pages = {xiv, 353}, year = {2023}, abstract = {International law is constantly navigating the tension between preserving the status quo and adapting to new exigencies. But when and how do such adaptation processes give way to a more profound transformation, if not a crisis of international law? To address the question of how attacks on the international legal order are changing the value orientation of international law, this book brings together scholars of international law and international relations. By combining theoretical and methodological analyses with individual case studies, this book offers readers conceptualizations and tools to systematically examine value change and explore the drivers and mechanisms of these processes. These case studies scrutinize value change in the foundational norms of the post-1945 order and in norms representing the rise of the international legal order post-1990. They cover diverse issues: the prohibition of torture, the protection of women's rights, the prohibition of the use of force, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, sustainability norms, and accountability for core international crimes. The challenges to each norm, the reactions by norm defenders, and the fate of each norm are also studied. Combined, the analyses show that while a few norms have remained surprisingly robust, several are changing, either in substance or in legal or social validity. The book concludes by integrating the conceptual and empirical insights from this interdisciplinary exchange to assess and explain the ambiguous nature of value change in international law beyond the extremes of mere progress or decline.}, 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{BindenagelŠehović2020, author = {Bindenagel Šehović, Annamarie}, title = {Towards a new definition of health security}, series = {Global public health : an international journal for research, policy and practice}, volume = {15}, journal = {Global public health : an international journal for research, policy and practice}, number = {1}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon, Oxfordshire}, issn = {1744-1692}, doi = {10.1080/17441692.2019.1634119}, pages = {1 -- 12}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In recent years the framings of global health security have shifted while the structures governing global health have largely remained the same. One feature of the emerging re-ordering is the unresolved allocation of accountability between state and non-state actors. This brings to critical challenges to global health security to the fore. The first is that the consensus on the seeming shift from state to human security framing with regard to the global human right to health (security) risks losing its salience. Second, this conceptual challenge is mirrored on the operational level: if states and non-state actors do not assume responsibility for health security, who or what can guarantee health security? In order to address global health security against the backdrop of these twenty-first Century challenges, this article proceeds in three parts. First, it analyses the shortcomings of the current state-based World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health security. Second, taking into account the rising pressures posed to global health security and the inadequacy both of state-based and of ad hoc non-state responses, it proposes a new framing. Third, the article offers initial insights into the operational application of beyond state responses to (health) security challenges.}, 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} } @incollection{HosliDoerfler2015, author = {Hosli, Madeleine O. and D{\"o}rfler, Thomas}, title = {The United Nations Security Council}, series = {Rising powers and multilateral institutions (International Political Economy Series)}, booktitle = {Rising powers and multilateral institutions (International Political Economy Series)}, editor = {Lesage, Dries and Van de Graaf, Thijs}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-349-48504-8}, doi = {10.1057/9781137397607_8}, pages = {135 -- 152}, year = {2015}, abstract = {The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the most important multilateral institutions having the ambition to shape global governance and the only organ of the global community that can adopt legally binding resolutions for the maintenance of international peace and security and, if necessary, authorize the use of force. Created in the aftermath of World War II by its victors, the UNSC's constellation looks increasingly anachronistic, however, in light of the changing global distribution of power. Adapting the institutional structure and decision-making procedures of the UNSC has proven to be one of the most difficult challenges of the last decades, while it is the institution that has probably been faced with the most vociferous calls for reform. Although there have been changes to the informal ways in which outside actors are drawn into the UNSC's work and activities, many of the major players in the current international system seem to be deprived from equal treatment in its core patterns of decision-making. Countries such as Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, alongside emerging African nations such as Nigeria and South Africa, are among the states eager to secure permanent representation on the Council. By comparison, selected BRICS countries, China and Russia - in contrast to their role in other multilateral institutions - are permanent members of the UNSC and with this, have been "insiders" for a long time. This renders the situation of the UNSC different from global institutions, in which traditionally, Western powers have dominated the agenda.}, language = {en} } @incollection{HosliDoerfler2020, author = {Hosli, Madeleine and D{\"o}rfler, Thomas}, title = {The United Nations Security Council}, series = {The Changing Global Order : Challenges and Prospects}, booktitle = {The Changing Global Order : Challenges and Prospects}, editor = {Hosli, Madeleine O. and Selleslaghs, Joren}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-21603-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-21603-0_15}, pages = {299 -- 320}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The chapter explores how the Security Council has reacted to the changing global order in terms of institutional reform and its working methods. First, we look at how the Security Council's setup looks increasingly anachronistic against the tremendous shifts in global power. Yet, established and rising powers are not disengaging. In contrast, they are turning to the Council to address growing challenges posed by the changing nature of armed conflict, the surge of terrorism and foreign fighters, nuclear proliferation and persistent intra-state conflicts. Then, we explore institutional and political hurdles for Council reform. While various reform models have been suggested, none of them gained the necessary global support. Instead, we demonstrate how the Council has increased the representation of emerging powers in informal ways. Potential candidates for permanent seats and their regional counterparts are committed as elected members, peacekeeping contributors or within the Peacebuilding Commission. Finally, we analyze how innovatively the Council has reacted to global security challenges. This includes working methods reform, expansion of sanctions regimes and involvement of non-state actors. We conclude that even though the Council's membership has not yet been altered, it has reacted to the changing global order in ways previously unaccounted for.}, language = {en} } @article{DuitLimSommerer2023, author = {Duit, Andreas and Lim, Sijeong and Sommerer, Thomas}, title = {The state and the environment}, series = {Politics \& policy}, volume = {51}, journal = {Politics \& policy}, number = {6}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken, NJ}, issn = {1555-5623}, doi = {10.1111/polp.12561}, pages = {1046 -- 1068}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The limitations and possibilities of the state in solving societal problems are perennial issues in the political and policy sciences and increasingly so in studies of environmental politics. With the aim of better understanding the role of the state in addressing environmental degradation through policy making, this article investigates the nexus between the environmental policy outputs and the environmental performance. Drawing on three theoretical perspectives on the state and market nexus in the environmental dilemma, we identify five distinct pathways. We then examine the extent to which these pathways are manifested in the real world. Our empirical investigation covers up to 37 countries for the period 1970-2010. While we see no global pattern of linkages between policy outputs and performance, our exploratory analysis finds evidence of policy effects, which suggest that the state can, under certain circumstances, improve the environment through policy making.}, language = {en} } @article{BacciniHeinzelKoenigArchibugi2021, author = {Baccini, Leonardo and Heinzel, Mirko and Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias}, title = {The social construction of global health priorities}, series = {International studies quarterly}, volume = {66}, journal = {International studies quarterly}, number = {1}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0020-8833}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqab092}, pages = {15}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Donors of development assistance for health typically provide funding for a range of disease focus areas, such as maternal health and child health, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other infectious diseases. But funding for each disease category does not match closely its contribution to the disability and loss of life it causes and the cost-effectiveness of interventions. We argue that peer influences in the social construction of global health priorities contribute to explaining this misalignment. Aid policy-makers are embedded in a social environment encompassing other donors, health experts, advocacy groups, and international officials. This social environment influences the conceptual and normative frameworks of decision-makers, which in turn affect their funding priorities. Aid policy-makers are especially likely to emulate decisions on funding priorities taken by peers with whom they are most closely involved in the context of expert and advocacy networks. We draw on novel data on donor connectivity through health IGOs and health INGOs and assess the argument by applying spatial regression models to health aid disbursed globally between 1990 and 2017. The analysis provides strong empirical support for our argument that the involvement in overlapping expert and advocacy networks shapes funding priorities regarding disease categories and recipient countries in health aid.}, language = {en} } @article{SeyfriedReith2019, author = {Seyfried, Markus and Reith, Florian}, title = {The seven deadly sins of quality management: trade-offs and implications for further research}, series = {Quality in higher education}, volume = {25}, journal = {Quality in higher education}, number = {3}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1353-8322}, doi = {10.1080/13538322.2019.1683943}, pages = {289 -- 303}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Quality management in higher education is generally discussed with reference to commendable outcomes such as success, best practice, improvement or control. This paper, though, focuses on the problems of organising quality management. It follows the narrative of the seven deadly sins, with each 'sin' illustrating an inherent trade-off or paradox in the implementation of internal quality management in teaching and learning in higher education institutions. Identifying the trade-offs behind these sins is essential for a better understanding of quality management as an organisational problem.}, language = {en} } @article{Leib2019, author = {Leib, Julia}, title = {The security and justice approach in liberia's peace process}, series = {Peace economics, peace science, and public policy}, volume = {25}, journal = {Peace economics, peace science, and public policy}, number = {4}, publisher = {de Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {1554-8597}, doi = {10.1515/peps-2019-0033}, pages = {6}, year = {2019}, abstract = {From the international perspective, the peace process in Liberia has generally been described as a successful model for international peacebuilding interventions. But how do Liberians perceive the peace process in their country? The aim of this paper is to complement an institutionalist approach looking at the security and justice mechanism in Liberia with some insights into local perceptions in order to answer the following question: how do Liberians perceive the peace process in their country and which institutions have been supportive for the establishment of sustaining peace? After briefly introducing the background of the Liberian conflict and the data collection, I present first results, analyzing the mechanism linking two peacebuilding institutions (peacekeeping and transitional justice) with the establishment of sustaining peace in Liberia.}, language = {en} }