TY - GEN A1 - Ganghof, Steffen T1 - Does public reason require super-majoritarian democracy? BT - Liberty, equality, and history in the justification of political institutions T2 - Politics, philosophy & economics N2 - The project of public-reason liberalism faces a basic problem: publicly justified principles are typically too abstract and vague to be directly applied to practical political disputes, whereas applicable specifications of these principles are not uniquely publicly justified. One solution could be a legislative procedure that selects one member from the eligible set of inconclusively justified proposals. Yet if liberal principles are too vague to select sufficiently specific legislative proposals, can they, nevertheless, select specific legislative procedures? Based on the work of Gerald Gaus, this article argues that the only candidate for a conclusively justified decision procedure is a majoritarian or otherwise ‘neutral’ democracy. If the justification of democracy requires an equality baseline in the design of political regimes and if justifications for departure from this baseline are subject to reasonable disagreement, a majoritarian design is justified by default. Gaus’s own preference for super-majoritarian procedures is based on disputable specifications of justified liberal principles. These procedures can only be defended as a sectarian preference if the equality baseline is rejected, but then it is not clear how the set of justifiable political regimes can be restricted to full democracies. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe - 86 KW - public-reason liberalism KW - democracy KW - coercion KW - political equality KW - majority rule KW - Gerald Gaus Y1 - 2018 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-477860 VL - 12 IS - 2 ER - 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 - CHAP A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Bouckaert, Geert T1 - Conclusion : Tensions, Challenges, and Future "Flags" of Local Public Sector Reforms and Comparative T2 - Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons Y1 - 2016 SN - 978-1-137-52547-5 SP - 347 EP - 354 PB - Palgrave Macmillan CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Reith, Florian A1 - Seyfried, Markus T1 - Balancing the Moods BT - Quality Managers’ Perceptions and Actions Against Resistance JF - Higher education policy N2 - Quality management (QM) has spread around the world and reached higher education in Europe in the early 1990s (Mendel, 2006, 137; Kernegger and Vettori, 2013, 1). However, researchers were rather more interested in national quality assurance policies (macro-level) and accreditation systems (meso-level) than in intra-organizational perspectives about the day-to-day implementation of quality assurance policies by various actors (micro-level). Undoubtedly, organizational change is a challenging endeavor for all kinds of groups. On the one hand, it provides the opportunity of further development and innovation, but on the other hand, it exposes organizations and actors to the risk of losing established structures and accepted routines. Like in many other organizations, actors may not necessarily perceive change as a promoter of innovation and development. Instead, they may consider change as a threat to the existing status quo or, as March points out, as an “interplay between rationality and foolishness” (March, 1981, 563). Consequently, change provokes either affective or behavioral actions (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999, 308–310), such as, for example, resistance. Anderson (2006, 2008) and Lucas (2014) have shown, for example, that academic resistance is an important issue. However, Piderit characterizes resistance as a multidimensional construct (Piderit, 2000, 786–787) subject to a wide variety of issues related to quality and QM. Although QM has been described as a “fashion” (Stensaker, 2007, 101) in the higher education sector that provokes many different reactions, its implementation in higher education institutions (HEIs) is still a rather unexplored field. Thus, the evidence provided by Anderson (2006, 2008) and others (Newton, 2000, 2002; McInnis et al., 1995; Fredman and Doughney, 2012; Lucas, 2014; etc.) needs to be expanded, because they only consider the perspective of academia. In particular, the view of other actors during the implementation of quality assurance policies is a missing piece in this empirical puzzle. Nearly nothing is known about how quality managers deal with reactions to organizational change like resistance and obstruction. Until now, only a few studies have focused on intra-organizational dynamics (see, for example: Csizmadia et al., 2008; Lipnicka, 2016). Besides the lack of research on the implementation of quality assurance policies in HEIs, quality managers seem to be an interesting subject for further investigations because they are “endogenous” to institutional processes. On the one hand, quality managers are the result of quality assurance policies, and on the other hand, they influence the implementation of quality assurance policies, which affect other actors (like academics, administrative staff, etc.). Here, quality managers, as members of an emerging higher education profession, are involved in various conflict lines between QM, HEI management and departments, which need further research (Seyfried and Pohlenz, 2018, 9). Therefore, the aim of our paper is twofold: firstly, to answer the question of how quality managers perceive resistance, and secondly, which measures they take in situations of perceived resistance. We offer a new research perspective and argue that resistance is not merely provoked by organizational change; it also provokes counter-reactions by actors who are confronted with resistance. Thus, resistance seems to be rather endogenous. To theorize our argument, we apply parts of the work of Christine Oliver (1991), which provides theoretical insights into strategic responses to institutional processes, ranging from acquiescence to manipulation (Oliver, 1991, 152). We, therefore, investigate the introduction of QM in teaching and learning, and the emergence of quality managers as higher education professionals as one of the results of quality assurance policies. Consequently, the introduction of QM may be considered as an institutional process provoking reactions and counter-reactions of various organizational units within HEIs. These circumstances are constitutive for how quality managers deal with resistance and other reactions toward organizational change. We use this theoretical framework to analyze the German higher education sector, because this particular case can be considered as a latecomer in New Public Management reforms (Schimank, 2005, 369) and Germany is a country where academic self-governance plays a very important role, and strongly influences academics’ behavior when it comes to organizational change (Wolter, 2004). Our empirical results are based on a mixed-methods research design and integrate half-structured interviews and a nationwide survey at the central level in German HEIs, which excludes faculty members of QM (decentral level). They reveal that quality managers take different types of action when resistance occurs during the implementation of quality assurance policies. Furthermore, quality managers mainly react with different tactics. These tactics seem to be relevant for convincing academics and for the enhancement of their commitment to improve the quality of teaching and learning, instead of provoking further resistance or avoidance practices. This article proceeds as follows: the next sections describe the context and explain our main theoretical concepts referring to the work of Oliver (1991) and others. After that, we present our case selection and the methodological framework, including the data sources and the operationalization of selected variables. Finally, we provide our empirical results about quality managers’ perceptions on resistance and we draw conclusions. KW - higher education KW - quality management KW - institutional processes KW - resistance KW - balancing Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0124-6 SN - 0952-8733 SN - 1740-3863 VL - 32 IS - 1 SP - 71 EP - 91 PB - Palgrave Macmillan CY - Basingstoke ER - TY - GEN A1 - Ganghof, Steffen A1 - Eppner, Sebastian A1 - Pörschke, Alexander T1 - Australian bicameralism as semi-parliamentarism BT - patterns of majority formation in 29 democracies T2 - Australian Journal of Political Science N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe - 95 KW - executive-legislative relations KW - bicameralism KW - parliamentary government KW - presidential government KW - visions of democracy Y1 - 2018 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412984 ER -