@phdthesis{Temmen2020,
  author    = {Temmen, Jens},
  title     = {The Territorialities of U.S. Imperialism(s)},
  series = {American Studies ; 308},
  journal   = {American Studies ; 308},
  publisher = {Winter},
  address   = {Heidelberg},
  isbn      = {978-3-8253-4713-0},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {x, 259},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {'The Territorialities of U.S. Imperialisms' sets into relation U.S. imperial and Indigenous conceptions of territoriality as articulated in U.S. legal texts and Indigenous life writing in the 19th century. It analyzes the ways in which U.S. legal texts as "legal fictions" narratively press to affirm the United States' territorial sovereignty and coherence in spite of its reliance on a variety of imperial practices that flexibly disconnect and (re)connect U.S. sovereignty, jurisdiction and territory. At the same time, the book acknowledges Indigenous life writing as legal texts in their own right and with full juridical force, which aim to highlight the heterogeneity of U.S. national territory both from their individual perspectives and in conversation with these legal fictions. Through this, the book's analysis contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the coloniality of U.S. legal fictions, while highlighting territoriality as a key concept in the fashioning of the narrative of U.S. imperialism.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Kamprath2014,
  author    = {Kamprath, Martin},
  title     = {A microfoundations perspectives on fresight and business models},
  pages     = {224},
  year      = {2014},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Reiners2017,
  author    = {Reiners, Nina},
  title     = {Transnational lawmaking coalitions for human rights},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {221, VI},
  year      = {2017},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Gasser2022,
  author    = {Gasser, Lucy},
  title     = {East and South},
  series = {Transdisciplinary souths},
  journal   = {Transdisciplinary souths},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-0-367-72225-8},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {vi, 186},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {"What is 'Europe' in academic discourse? While Europe tends to be used as shorthand, often interchangeable with the 'West', neither the 'West' nor 'Europe' are homogeneous spaces. Though postcolonial studies have long been debunking Eurocentrism in its multiple guises, there is still work to do in fully comprehending how its imaginations and discursive legacies conceive the figure of Europe, as not all who live on European soil are understood as equally 'European'. This volume explores this immediate need to rethink the axis of postcolonial cultural productions, to disarticulate Eurocentrism, to recognise Europe as a more diverse, plural and fluid space, to draw forward cultural exchanges and dialogues within the Global South. Through analyses of literary texts from East-Central Europe and beyond, this volume sheds light on alternative literary cartographies - the multiplicity of Europes and being European which exist both as they are viewed from the different geographies of the global South, and within the continent itself. Covering a wide spatial and temporal terrain in postcolonial and European cultural productions, this volume will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of literature and literary criticism, cultural studies, post-colonial studies, Global South studies and European studies"},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Patz2013,
  author    = {Patz, Ronny},
  title     = {Information flows in the context of EU policy-making : affiliation networks and the post-2012 reform of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-70732},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Information flows in EU policy-making are heavily dependent on personal networks, both within the Brussels sphere but also reaching outside the narrow limits of the Belgian capital. These networks develop for example in the course of formal and informal meetings or at the sidelines of such meetings. A plethora of committees at European, transnational and regional level provides the basis for the establishment of pan-European networks. By studying affiliation to those committees, basic network structures can be uncovered. These affiliation network structures can then be used to predict EU information flows, assuming that certain positions within the network are advantageous for tapping into streams of information while others are too remote and peripheral to provide access to information early enough. This study has tested those assumptions for the case of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy for the time after 2012. Through the analysis of an affiliation network based on participation in 10 different fisheries policy committees over two years (2009 and 2010), network data for an EU-wide network of about 1300 fisheries interest group representatives and more than 200 events was collected. The structure of this network showed a number of interesting patterns, such as - not surprisingly - a rather central role of Brussels-based committees but also close relations of very specific interests to the Brussels-cluster and stronger relations between geographically closer maritime regions. The analysis of information flows then focused on access to draft EU Commission documents containing the upcoming proposal for a new basic regulation of the Common Fisheries Policy. It was first documented that it would have been impossible to officially obtain this document and that personal networks were thus the most likely sources for fisheries policy actors to obtain access to these "leaks" in early 2011. A survey of a sample of 65 actors from the initial network supported these findings: Only a very small group had accessed the draft directly from the Commission. Most respondents who obtained access to the draft had received it from other actors, highlighting the networked flow of informal information in EU politics. Furthermore, the testing of the hypotheses connecting network positions and the level of informedness indicated that presence in or connections to the Brussels sphere had both advantages for overall access to the draft document and with regard to timing. Methodologically, challenges of both the network analysis and the analysis of information flows but also their relevance for the study of EU politics have been documented. In summary, this study has laid the foundation for a different way to study EU policy-making by connecting topical and methodological elements - such as affiliation network analysis and EU committee governance - which so far have not been considered together, thereby contributing in various ways to political science and EU studies.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schmidt2016,
  author    = {Schmidt, Peter},
  title     = {Contributions to EU regional policy},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-90837},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xii, 137},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {This cumulative dissertation contains four self-contained articles which are related to EU regional policy and its structural funds as the overall research topic. In particular, the thesis addresses the question if EU regional policy interventions can at all be scientifically justified and legitimated on theoretical and empirical grounds from an economics point of view. The first two articles of the thesis ("The EU structural funds as a means to hamper migration" and "Internal migration and EU regional policy transfer payments: a panel data analysis for 28 EU member countries") enter into one particular aspect of the debate regarding the justification and legitimisation of EU regional policy. They theoretically and empirically analyse as to whether regional policy or the market force of the free flow of labour (migration) in the internal European market is the better instrument to improve and harmonise the living and working conditions of EU citizens. Based on neoclassical market failure theory, the first paper argues that the structural funds of the EU are inhibiting internal migration, which is one of the key measures in achieving convergence among the nations in the single European market. It becomes clear that European regional policy aiming at economic growth and cohesion among the member states cannot be justified and legitimated if the structural funds hamper instead of promote migration. The second paper, however, shows that the empirical evidence on the migration and regional policy nexus is not unambiguous, i.e. different empirical investigations show that EU structural funds hamper and promote EU internal migration. Hence, the question of the scientific justification and legitimisation of EU regional policy cannot be readily and unambiguously answered on empirical grounds. This finding is unsatisfying but is in line with previous theoretical and empirical literature. That is why, I take a step back and reconsider the theoretical beginnings of the thesis, which took for granted neoclassical market failure theory as the starting point for the positive explanation as well as the normative justification and legitimisation of EU regional policy. The third article of the thesis ("EU regional policy: theoretical foundations and policy conclusions revisited") deals with the theoretical explanation and legitimisation of EU regional policy as well as the policy recommendations given to EU regional policymakers deduced from neoclassical market failure theory. The article elucidates that neoclassical market failure is a normative concept, which justifies and legitimates EU regional policy based on a political and thus subjective goal or value-judgement. It can neither be used, therefore, to give a scientifically positive explanation of the structural funds nor to obtain objective and practically applicable policy instruments. Given this critique of neoclassical market failure theory, the third paper consequently calls into question the widely prevalent explanation and justification of EU regional policy given in static neoclassical equilibrium economics. It argues that an evolutionary non-equilibrium economics perspective on EU regional policy is much more appropriate to provide a realistic understanding of one of the largest policies conducted by the EU. However, this does neither mean that evolutionary economic theory can be unreservedly seen as the panacea to positively explain EU regional policy nor to derive objective policy instruments for EU regional policymakers. This issue is discussed in the fourth article of the thesis ("Market failure vs. system failure as a rationale for economic policy? A critique from an evolutionary perspective"). This article reconsiders the explanation of economic policy from an evolutionary economics perspective. It contrasts the neoclassical equilibrium notions of market and government failure with the dominant evolutionary neo-Schumpeterian and Austrian-Hayekian perceptions. Based on this comparison, the paper criticises the fact that neoclassical failure reasoning still prevails in non-equilibrium evolutionary economics when economic policy issues are examined. This is surprising, since proponents of evolutionary economics usually view their approach as incompatible with its neoclassical counterpart. The paper therefore argues that in order to prevent the otherwise fruitful and more realistic evolutionary approach from undermining its own criticism of neoclassical economics and to create a consistent as well as objective evolutionary policy framework, it is necessary to eliminate the equilibrium spirit. Taken together, the main finding of this thesis is that European regional policy and its structural funds can neither theoretically nor empirically be justified and legitimated from an economics point of view. Moreover, the thesis finds that the prevalent positive and instrumental explanation of EU regional policy given in the literature needs to be reconsidered, because these theories can neither scientifically explain the emergence and development of this policy nor are they appropriate to derive objective and scientific policy instruments for EU regional policymakers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schiller2016,
  author    = {Schiller, Christof},
  title     = {The Politics of Welfare State Transformation in Germany},
  series = {Routledge-EUI studies in the political economy of welfare ; 17},
  journal   = {Routledge-EUI studies in the political economy of welfare ; 17},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-1-315-62390-0},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {273},
  year      = {2016},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Kaltschew2016,
  author    = {Kaltschew, Kristian},
  title     = {Die politische Opposition in autorit{\"a}ren Regimen},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-103930},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {237},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Die Empirie des beginnenden 21. Jahrhunderts weist mehr autorit{\"a}re Regime aus als am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts angenommen. Die gegenw{\"a}rtige Autoritarismusforschung versucht die Fortdauer dieses Regimetyps in Hinblick auf die politischen Institutionen zu erkl{\"a}ren - dabei bleiben politische Akteure, die nicht zum Herrschaftszentrum geh{\"o}ren, außen vor. Das vorliegende Projekt untersucht die Rolle und Funktion politischer Opposition in autorit{\"a}ren Regimen. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass sich an der Opposition eine signifikante Charakteristik autorit{\"a}rer Regime manifestiert. Das akteurszentrierte Projekt ist der qualitativ orientierten Politikwissenschaft zuzurechnen und verkn{\"u}pft das Autoritarismuskonzept von Juan Linz mit klassischen Ans{\"a}tzen der Oppositionsforschung und macht diese Theorien f{\"u}r die gegenw{\"a}rtige Autoritarismusforschung nutzbar. Die eigens entwickelte elitenorientierte Oppositionstypologie wird am Beispiel Kenias im Zeitraum 1990-2005 angewendet. Die Oppositionsgruppen werden im Institutionengef{\"u}ge autorit{\"a}rer Regime verortet und ihr politisches Agieren in den Dimensionen Handlungsstatus, Handlungs{\"u}berzeugung und Handlungsstrategie analysiert. Unter Beachtung der historisch gewachsenen regionalen und kulturellen Spezifika wird angenommen, dass generelle, Regionen {\"u}bergreifende Aussagen zur Opposition in autorit{\"a}ren Regimen getroffen werden k{\"o}nnen: Kein Oppositionstyp kann allein einen Herrschaftswechsel bewirken. Der Wechsel bzw. die Fortdauer der Herrschaft h{\"a}ngt von der Dominanz bestimmter Oppositionstypen im Oppositionsgeflecht sowie der gleichzeitigen Schw{\"a}che anderer Oppositionstypen ab. Durch die konzeptionelle Besch{\"a}ftigung mit Opposition sowie deren empirische Erschließung soll ein substantieller Beitrag f{\"u}r die notwendige Debatte um autorit{\"a}re Regime im 21. Jahrhundert geleistet werden.},
  language  = {de}
}
@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}
}
@phdthesis{Tietz2014,
  author    = {Tietz, Marcel},
  title     = {Europ{\"a}isches Verwaltungsmanagement : Vergleich von Hauptst{\"a}dten neuer und alter Mitgliedsstaaten der EU am Beispiel der B{\"u}rgerdienste},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-72171},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Im Rahmen der Dissertation wird die Anwendung und Wirkung von Kernelementen des New Public Management (NPM) am Beispiel der B{\"u}rgerdienste der sechs europ{\"a}ischen Hauptst{\"a}dte Berlin, Br{\"u}ssel, Kopenhagen, Madrid, Prag und Warschau analysiert. Hierbei steht der Vergleich von Hauptst{\"a}dten der MOE-Staaten mit Hauptst{\"a}dten alter EU-Mitgliedsstaaten im Vordergrund. Es wird die folgende Forschungshypothese untersucht: Die Verwaltungen in den Hauptst{\"a}dten der {\"o}stlichen Mitgliedsstaaten der EU haben in Folge der grunds{\"a}tzlichen gesellschaftlichen und politischen Umbr{\"u}che in den 1990er Jahren bedeutend mehr Kernelemente des NPM beim Neuaufbau ihrer {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltungen eingef{\"u}hrt. Durch den folgerichtigen Aufbau kundenorientierter und moderner Verwaltungen sowie der strikten Anwendung der Kernelemente des New Public Management arbeiten die B{\"u}rgerdienste in den Hauptst{\"a}dten {\"o}stlicher EU-Mitgliedsstaaten effizienter und wirkungsvoller als vergleichbare B{\"u}rgerdienste in den Hauptst{\"a}dten westlicher EU-Mitgliedsstaaten. Zur {\"U}berpr{\"u}fung der Forschungshypothese werden die Vergleichsst{\"a}dte zun{\"a}chst den entsprechenden Rechts- und Verwaltungstraditionen (kontinentaleurop{\"a}isch deutsch, napoleonisch und skandinavisch) zugeordnet und bez{\"u}glich ihrer Ausgangslage zum Aufbau einer modernen Verwaltung (Westeurop{\"a}ische Verwaltung, Wiedervereinigungsverwaltung und Transformations-verwaltung) kategorisiert. Im Anschluss werden die institutionellen Voraussetzungen hinterfragt, was die deskriptive Darstellung der Stadt- und Verwaltungsgeschichte sowie die Untersuchung von organisatorischen Strukturen der B{\"u}rgerdienste, die Anwendung der NPM-Instrumente als auch die Innen- und Außenperspektive des NPM umfasst. Es wird festgestellt, ob und in welcher Form die B{\"u}rgerdienste der Vergleichsst{\"a}dte die Kernelemente des NPM anwenden. Im Anschluss werden die Vergleichsst{\"a}dte bez{\"u}glich der Anwendung der Kernelemente miteinander verglichen, wobei der Fokus auf dem pers{\"o}nlichen Vertriebsweg und der Kundenorientierung liegt. Der folgende Teil der Dissertation befasst sich mit dem Output der B{\"u}rgerdienste, der auf operative Resultate untersucht und verglichen wird. Hierbei stellt sich insbesondere die Frage nach den Leistungsmengen und der Produktivit{\"a}t des Outputs. Es werden aber auch die Ergebnisse von Verwaltungsprozessen untersucht, insbesondere in Bezug auf die Kundenorientierung. Hierf{\"u}r wird ein Effizienzvergleich der B{\"u}rgerdienste in den Vergleichsst{\"a}dten anhand einer relativen Effizienzmessung und der Free Disposal Hull (FDH)-Methode nach Bouckaert durchgef{\"u}hrt. Es ist eine Konzentration auf popul{\"a}re Dienstleistungen aus dem Portfolio der B{\"u}rgerdienste notwendig. Daher werden die vergleichbaren Dienstleistungen Melde-, Personalausweis-, F{\"u}hrerschein- und Reisepass-angelegenheiten unter Einbeziehung des Vollzeit{\"a}quivalents zur Berechnung der Effizienz der B{\"u}rgerdienste herangezogen. Hierf{\"u}r werden Daten aus den Jahren 2009 bis 2011 genutzt, die teilweise aus verwaltungsinternen Datenbanken stammen. Anschließend wird der Versuch unternommen, den Outcome in die Effizienzanalyse der B{\"u}rgerdienste einfließen zu lassen. In diesem Zusammenhang wird die Anwendbarkeit von verschiedenen erweiterten Best-Practice-Verfahren und auch eine Erweiterung der relativen Effizienzmessung und der FDH-Methode gepr{\"u}ft. Als Gesamtfazit der Dissertation kann festgehalten werden, dass die B{\"u}rgerdienste in den untersuchten Hauptst{\"a}dten der MOE-Staaten nicht mehr Kernelemente des NPM anwenden, als die Hauptst{\"a}dte der westlichen Mitgliedsstaaten der EU. Im Gegenteil wendet Prag deutlich weniger NPM-Instrumente als andere Vergleichsst{\"a}dte an, wohingegen Warschau zwar viele NPM-Instrumente anwendet, jedoch immer von einer westeurop{\"a}ischen Vergleichsstadt {\"u}bertroffen wird. Auch die Hypothese, dass die B{\"u}rgerdienste in den Hauptst{\"a}dten der MOE-Staaten effizienter arbeiten als vergleichbare B{\"u}rgerdienste in den Hauptst{\"a}dten westlicher EU-Mitgliedsstaaten wurde durch die Dissertation entkr{\"a}ftet. Das Gegenteil ist der Fall, da Prag und Warschau im Rahmen des Effizienzvergleichs lediglich durchschnittliche oder schlechte Performances aufweisen. Die aufgestellte Hypothese ist durch die Forschungsergebnisse widerlegt, lediglich das gute Abschneiden der Vergleichsstadt Warschau bei der Anwendungsanalyse kann einen Teil der These im gewissen Umfang best{\"a}tigen.},
  language  = {de}
}