TY  - GEN
A1  - Ganghof, Steffen
A1  - Eppner, Sebastian
A1  - Stecker, Christian
A1  - Heeß, Katja
A1  - Schukraft, Stefan
T1  - Do minority cabinets govern more flexibly and inclusively?
BT  - evidence from Germany
T2  - Postprints der Universität Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe
N2  - A widespread view in political science is that minority cabinets govern more flexibly and inclusively, more in line with a median-oriented and 'consensual' vision of democracy. Yet there is only little empirical evidence for it. We study legislative coalition-building in the German state of North-Rhine-Westphalia, which was ruled by a minority government between 2010 and 2012. We compare the inclusiveness of legislative coalitions under minority and majority cabinets, based on 1028 laws passed in the 1985–2017 period, and analyze in detail the flexibility of legislative coalition formation under the minority government. Both quantitative analyses are complemented with brief case studies of specific legislation. We find, first, that the minority cabinet did not rule more inclusively. Second, the minority cabinet’s legislative flexibility was fairly limited; to the extent that it existed, it follows a pattern that cannot be explained on the basis of the standard spatial model with policy-seeking parties.
T3  - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe - 114 
KW  - Australian bicameralism
KW  - pledge fulfillment
KW  - majority formation
KW  - veto players
KW  - patterns
KW  - coalitions
KW  - consensus
KW  - democracy
KW  - parties
KW  - policy
Y1  - 2019
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-434175
SN  - 1867-5808
IS  - 114
SP  - 541
EP  - 561
ER  - 
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  -