@phdthesis{vonKaphengst2019, author = {von Kaphengst, Dragana}, title = {Project's management quality in development cooperation}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43099}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-430992}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xvii, 237}, year = {2019}, abstract = {In light of the debate on the consequences of competitive contracting out of traditionally public services, this research compares two mechanisms used to allocate funds in development cooperation—direct awarding and competitive contracting out—aiming to identify their potential advantages and disadvantages. The agency theory is applied within the framework of rational-choice institutionalism to study the institutional arrangements that surround two different money allocation mechanisms, identify the incentives they create for the behavior of individual actors in the field, and examine how these then transfer into measurable differences in managerial quality of development aid projects. In this work, project management quality is seen as an important determinant of the overall project success. For data-gathering purposes, the German development agency, the Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), is used due to its unique way of work. Whereas the majority of projects receive funds via direct-award mechanism, there is a commercial department, GIZ International Services (GIZ IS) that has to compete for project funds. The data concerning project management practices on the GIZ and GIZ IS projects was gathered via a web-based, self-administered survey of project team leaders. Principal component analysis was applied to reduce the dimensionality of the independent variable to total of five components of project management. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis identified the differences between the separate components on these two project types. Enriched by qualitative data gathered via interviews, this thesis offers insights into everyday managerial practices in development cooperation and identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the two allocation mechanisms. The thesis first reiterates the responsibility of donors and implementers for overall aid effectiveness. It shows that the mechanism of competitive contracting out leads to better oversight and control of implementers, fosters deeper cooperation between the implementers and beneficiaries, and has a potential to strengthen ownership of recipient countries. On the other hand, it shows that the evaluation quality does not tremendously benefit from the competitive allocation mechanism and that the quality of the component knowledge management and learning is better when direct-award mechanisms are used. This raises questions about the lacking possibilities of actors in the field to learn about past mistakes and incorporate the finings into the future interventions, which is one of the fundamental issues of aid effectiveness. Finally, the findings show immense deficiencies in regard to oversight and control of individual projects in German development cooperation.}, language = {en} } @article{Debre2021, author = {Debre, Maria Josepha}, title = {Clubs of autocrats}, series = {The review of international organizations}, volume = {17}, journal = {The review of international organizations}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Boston}, issn = {1559-7431}, doi = {10.1007/s11558-021-09428-y}, pages = {485 -- 511}, year = {2021}, abstract = {While scholars have argued that membership in Regional Organizations (ROs) can increase the likelihood of democratization, we see many autocratic regimes surviving in power albeit being members of several ROs. This article argues that this is the case because these regimes are often members in "Clubs of Autocrats" that supply material and ideational resources to strengthen domestic survival politics and shield members from external interference during moments of political turmoil. The argument is supported by survival analysis testing the effect of membership in autocratic ROs on regime survival between 1946 to 2010. It finds that membership in ROs composed of more autocratic member states does in fact raise the likelihood of regime survival by protecting incumbents against democratic challenges such as civil unrest or political dissent. However, autocratic RO membership does not help to prevent regime breakdown due to autocratic challenges like military coups, potentially because these types of threats are less likely to diffuse to other member states. The article thereby adds to our understanding of the limits of democratization and potential reverse effects of international cooperation, and contributes to the literature addressing interdependences of international and domestic politics in autocratic regimes.}, language = {en} } @article{GanghofEppnerPoerschke2018, author = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian and P{\"o}rschke, Alexander}, title = {Semi-parliamentary government in perspective}, series = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, volume = {53}, journal = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, number = {2}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1036-1146}, doi = {10.1080/10361146.2018.1451488}, pages = {264 -- 269}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The article responds to four commentaries on the concept of semi-parliamentary government and its application to Australian bicameralism. It highlights four main points: (1) Our preferred typology is not more 'normative' than existing approaches, but applies the criterion of 'direct election' equally to executive and legislature; (2) While the evolution of semi-parliamentary government had contingent elements, it plausibly also reflects the 'equilibrium' nature of certain institutional configurations; (3) The idea that a pure parliamentary system with pure proportional representation has absolute normative priority over 'instrumentalist' concerns about cabinet stability, identifiability and responsibility is questionable; and (4) The reforms we discuss may be unlikely to occur in Australia, but deserve consideration by scholars and institutional reformers in other democratic systems.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Juchler2020, author = {Juchler, Ingo}, title = {Demokratische Aufbr{\"u}che in Berlin}, series = {Forschen.Lernen.Lehren an {\"o}ffentlichen Orten - The Wider View}, booktitle = {Forschen.Lernen.Lehren an {\"o}ffentlichen Orten - The Wider View}, editor = {Jungwirth, Martin}, publisher = {WTM-Verlag}, address = {M{\"u}nster}, isbn = {978-3-95987-136-5}, doi = {10.37626/GA9783959871365.0}, pages = {155 -- 160}, year = {2020}, language = {de} } @misc{Juchler2022, author = {Juchler, Ingo}, title = {Narrationen in der f{\"a}cher{\"u}bergreifenden politischen Bildung}, publisher = {bbp, Bundeszentrale f{\"u}r politische Bildung}, address = {Bonn}, pages = {19}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In welchem Verh{\"a}ltnis stehen Literatur und das Politische? F{\"o}rdert narrative politische Bildung Ambiguit{\"a}tstoleranz und Mehrstimmigkeit? Der Beitrag diskutiert aktuelle didaktische Theorien und Beispiele.}, language = {de} } @article{GanghofEppnerPoerschke2018, author = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian and P{\"o}rschke, Alexander}, title = {Australian bicameralism as semi-parliamentarism}, series = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, volume = {53}, journal = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, number = {2}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1036-1146}, doi = {10.1080/10361146.2018.1451487}, pages = {211 -- 233}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The article analyses the type of bicameralism we find in Australia as a distinct executive-legislative system - a hybrid between parliamentary and presidential government - which we call 'semi-parliamentary government'. We argue that this hybrid presents an important and underappreciated alternative to pure parliamentary government as well as presidential forms of the power-separation, and that it can achieve a certain balance between competing models or visions of democracy. We specify theoretically how the semi-parliamentary separation of powers contributes to the balancing of democratic visions and propose a conceptual framework for comparing democratic visions. We use this framework to locate the Australian Commonwealth, all Australian states and 22 advanced democratic nation-states on a two-dimensional empirical map of democratic patterns for the period from 1995 to 2015.}, language = {en} } @article{RockstroemKotzeMilutinovićetal.2024, author = {Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan and Kotz{\´e}, Louis and Milutinović, Svetlana and Biermann, Frank and Brovkin, Victor and Donges, Jonathan and Ebbesson, Jonas and French, Duncan and Gupta, Joyeeta and Kim, Rakhyun and Lenton, Timothy and Lenzi, Dominic and Nakicenovic, Nebojsa and Neumann, Barbara and Schuppert, Fabian and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Bosselmann, Klaus and Folke, Carl and Lucht, Wolfgang and Schlosberg, David and Richardson, Katherine and Steffen, Will}, title = {The planetary commons}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, volume = {121}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, number = {5}, publisher = {National Academy of Sciences}, address = {Washington, DC}, issn = {1091-6490}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.2301531121}, pages = {10}, year = {2024}, abstract = {The Anthropocene signifies the start of a no- analogue tra­jectory of the Earth system that is fundamentally different from the Holocene. This new trajectory is characterized by rising risks of triggering irreversible and unmanageable shifts in Earth system functioning. We urgently need a new global approach to safeguard critical Earth system regulating functions more effectively and comprehensively. The global commons framework is the closest example of an existing approach with the aim of governing biophysical systems on Earth upon which the world collectively depends. Derived during stable Holocene conditions, the global commons framework must now evolve in the light of new Anthropocene dynamics. This requires a fundamental shift from a focus only on governing shared resources beyond national jurisdiction, to one that secures critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. We propose a new framework—the planetary commons—which differs from the global commons frame­work by including not only globally shared geographic regions but also critical biophysical systems that regulate the resilience and state, and therefore livability, on Earth. The new planetary commons should articulate and create comprehensive stewardship obligations through Earth system governance aimed at restoring and strengthening planetary resilience and justice.}, language = {en} }