TY - JOUR A1 - Holthaus, Leonie A1 - Stockmann, Nils T1 - Who makes the world? BT - Academics and (un)cancelling the future JF - New perspectives N2 - 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. KW - multiplicity KW - policy KW - scholar-practitioners KW - transdisciplinarity KW - un-cancelling the future KW - world-makers Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X20935246 SN - 2336-825X SN - 2336-8268 VL - 28 IS - 3 SP - 413 EP - 427 PB - Sage Publications CY - Thousand Oaks, CA ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Lundgren, Magnus A1 - Squatrito, Theresa A1 - Sommerer, Thomas A1 - Tallberg, Jonas T1 - Introducing the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset (IPOD) JF - The review of international organizations N2 - There is a growing recognition that international organizations (IOs) formulate and adopt policy in a wide range of areas. IOs have emerged as key venues for states seeking joint solutions to contemporary challenges such as climate change or COVID-19, and to establish frameworks to bolster trade, development, security, and more. In this capacity, IOs produce both extraordinary and routine policy output with a multitude of purposes, ranging from policies of historic significance like admitting new members to the more mundane tasks of administering IO staff. This article introduces the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset (IPOD), which covers close to 37,000 individual policy acts of 13 multi-issue IOs in the 1980–2015 period. The dataset fills a gap in the growing body of literature on the comparative study of IOs, providing researchers with a fine-grained perspective on the structure of IO policy output and data for comparisons across time, policy areas, and organizations. This article describes the construction and coverage of the dataset and identifies key temporal and cross-sectional patterns revealed by the data. In a concise illustration of the dataset’s utility, we apply models of punctuated equilibria in a comparative study of the relationship between institutional features and broad policy agenda dynamics. Overall, the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset offers a unique resource for researchers to analyze IO policy output in a granular manner and to explore questions of responsiveness, performance, and legitimacy of IOs. KW - international organizations KW - policy KW - policy agendas KW - decision-making Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-023-09492-6 SN - 1559-7431 SN - 1559-744X VL - 19 SP - 117 EP - 146 PB - Springer CY - Boston ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Tjaden, Jasper A1 - Spörlein, Christoph T1 - How much do “local policies” matter for refugee integration? BT - an analytical model and evidence from a highly decentralized country JF - International migration review N2 - A growing number of studies have recently postulated a so-called local turn in the study of immigrant and refugee integration policy. A fundamental, yet untested, assumption of this body of research is that local (sub-national) policies and administrations shape how migrants and refugees integrate into society. We develop and apply an analytical model using multilevel modeling techniques based on large-N, longitudinal survey data (N > 9000) with refugees (2012–2018) in a highly decentralized country (Germany) to estimate the scope for local policy effects net of individual-level and state- and district-level characteristics. We show that region and district-level variation in integration outcomes across multiple dimensions (employment, education, language, housing, social) is limited (∼5%) within 4–8 years after immigration. We find modest variation in policy indicators (∼10%), which do not appear to directly translate into outcomes. We discuss implications for the study of local policies and the potential for greater convergence between administrative and political science, interested in governance structures and policy variation, and sociology and economics, interested primarily in integration outcomes. KW - refugee KW - policy KW - integration Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183231205561 SN - 0197-9183 SN - 1747-7379 PB - Sage Publications CY - Thousand Oaks ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bubeck, Philip A1 - Kreibich, Heidi A1 - Penning-Rowsell, E. C. A1 - Botzen, W. J. Wouter A1 - de Moel, H. A1 - Klijn, F. T1 - Explaining differences in flood management approaches in Europe and in the USA - a comparative analysis JF - Journal of flood risk management N2 - Flood risk management in Europe and worldwide is not static but constantly in a state of flux. There has been a trend towards more integrated flood risk management in many countries. However, the initial situation and the pace and direction of change is very different in the various countries. In this paper, we will present a conceptual framework that seeks to explain why countries opt for different flood risk management portfolios. The developed framework utilises insights from a range of policy science concepts in an integrated way and considers, among others, factors such as geographical characteristics, the experience with flood disasters, as well as human behavioural aspects. KW - Flood risk management KW - impact KW - policy Y1 - 2017 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12151 SN - 1753-318X VL - 10 SP - 436 EP - 445 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER -