@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} } @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{SchmidtWellenburg2018, author = {Schmidt-Wellenburg, Christian}, title = {Struggling over crisis}, series = {Historical Social Research}, volume = {43}, journal = {Historical Social Research}, number = {3}, publisher = {GESIS, Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences}, address = {Cologne}, issn = {0172-6404}, doi = {10.12759/hsr.43.2018.3.147-188}, pages = {147 -- 188}, year = {2018}, abstract = {If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions." Following the premise of this quotation attributed to Winston Churchill, varying perceptions of the European crisis by academic economists and their structural homology to economists' positions in the field of economics are examined. The dataset analysed using specific multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC) comprises information on the careers of 480 German-speaking economists and on statements they made concerning crisis-related issues. It can be shown that the main structural differences in the composition and amount of scientific and academic capital held by economists as well as their age and degree of transnationalisation are linked to how they see the crisis: as a national sovereign debt crisis, as a European banking crisis, or as a crisis of European integration and institutions.}, language = {en} } @article{Daviter2018, author = {Daviter, Falk}, title = {The framing of EU policies}, series = {Handbook of European Policies Interpretive Approaches to the EU}, journal = {Handbook of European Policies Interpretive Approaches to the EU}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham}, isbn = {978-1-78471-936-4}, doi = {10.1080/13501760701314474}, pages = {91 -- 112}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This chapter discusses how framing analysis can contribute to studies of policy making in the European Union (EU). Framing analysis is understood as an analytical perspective that focuses on how policy problems are constructed and categorised. This analytical perspective allows researchers to reconstruct how shifting problem frames empower competing constituencies and create changing patterns of political participation at the supranational level. Studies that assume a longitudinal perspective on EU policy development show how the framing of EU policy is constitutive of the way in which the jurisdictional boundaries and constitutional mandates of the EU evolve over time. Reviewing the growing body of empirical studies on EU policy framing in the context of the diverse theoretical origins of framing analysis, the chapter argues that framing research which takes seriously the notion that policy-making involves both puzzling and powering allows this analytical perspective to contribute a unique perspective on EU policy making.}, language = {en} } @article{Angerer2018, author = {Angerer, Marie-Luise}, title = {Intensive bondage}, series = {Affect in relation: families, places, technologies}, journal = {Affect in relation: families, places, technologies}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {Abingdon}, isbn = {978-1-315-16386-4}, pages = {241 -- 258}, year = {2018}, language = {en} } @article{JantzKlenkLarsenetal.2018, author = {Jantz, Bastian and Klenk, Tanja and Larsen, Flemming and Wiggan, Jay}, title = {Marketization and Varieties of Accountability Relationships in Employment Services}, series = {Administration \& society}, volume = {50}, journal = {Administration \& society}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {0095-3997}, doi = {10.1177/0095399715581622}, pages = {321 -- 345}, year = {2018}, abstract = {In the past decade, European countries have contracted out public employment service functions to activate working-age benefit clients. There has been limited discussion of how contracting out shapes the accountability of employment services or is shaped by alternative democratic, administrative, or network forms of accountability. This article examines employment service accountability in Germany, Denmark, and Great Britain. We find that market accountability instruments are additional instruments, not replacements. The findings highlight the importance of administrative and political instruments in legitimizing marketized service provision and shed light on the processes that lead to the development of a hybrid accountability model.}, language = {en} } @article{Ganghof2018, author = {Ganghof, Steffen}, title = {A new political system model}, series = {European Journal for Political Research}, volume = {57}, journal = {European Journal for Political Research}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0304-4130}, doi = {10.1111/1475-6765.12224}, pages = {261 -- 281}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Semi-parliamentary government is a distinct executive-legislative system that mirrors semi-presidentialism. It exists when the legislature is divided into two equally legitimate parts, only one of which can dismiss the prime minister in a no-confidence vote. This system has distinct advantages over pure parliamentary and presidential systems: it establishes a branch-based separation of powers and can balance the 'majoritarian' and 'proportional' visions of democracy without concentrating executive power in a single individual. This article analyses bicameral versions of semi-parliamentary government in Australia and Japan, and compares empirical patterns of democracy in the Australian Commonwealth as well as New South Wales to 20 advanced parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. It discusses new semi-parliamentary designs, some of which do not require formal bicameralism, and pays special attention to semi-parliamentary options for democratising the European Union.}, language = {en} } @article{SeyfriedAnsmann2018, author = {Seyfried, Markus and Ansmann, Moritz}, title = {Unfreezing higher education institutions?}, series = {Higher Education}, volume = {75}, journal = {Higher Education}, number = {6}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {0018-1560}, doi = {10.1007/s10734-017-0185-2}, pages = {1061 -- 1076}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Quality management (QM) in teaching and learning has strongly "infected" the higher education sector and spread around the world. It has almost everywhere become an integral part of higher education reforms. While existing research on QM mainly focuses on the national level from a macro-perspective, its introduction at the institutional level is only rarely analyzed. The present article addresses this research gap. Coming from the perspective of organization studies, it examines the factors that were crucial for the introduction of QM at higher education institutions in Germany. As the introduction of QM can be considered to be a process of organizational change, the article refers to Kurt Lewin's seminal concept of "unfreezing" organizations as a theoretical starting point. Methodologically, a mixed methods approach is applied by combining qualitative data derived from interviews with institutional quality managers and quantitative data gathered from a nationwide survey. The results show that the introduction of QM is initiated by either internal or external processes. Furthermore, some institutions follow a rather voluntary approach of unfreezing, while others show modes of forced unfreezing. Consequently, the way how QM was introduced has important implications for its implementation.}, language = {en} } @article{BradyGiesselmannKohleretal.2018, author = {Brady, David and Giesselmann, Marco and Kohler, Ulrich and Radenacker, Anke}, title = {How to measure and proxy permanent income}, series = {The Journal of Economic Inequality}, volume = {16}, journal = {The Journal of Economic Inequality}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1569-1721}, doi = {10.1007/s10888-017-9363-9}, pages = {321 -- 345}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Permanent income (PI) is an enduring concept in the social sciences and is highly relevant to the study of inequality. Nevertheless, there has been insufficient progress in measuring PI. We calculate a novel measure of PI with the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Advancing beyond prior approaches, we define PI as the logged average of 20+ years of post-tax and post-transfer ("post-fisc") real equivalized household income. We then assess how well various household- and individual-based measures of economic resources proxy PI. In both datasets, post-fisc household income is the best proxy. One random year of post-fisc household income explains about half of the variation in PI, and 2-5 years explain the vast majority of the variation. One year of post-fisc HH income even predicts PI better than 20+ years of individual labor market earnings or long-term net worth. By contrast, earnings, wealth, occupation, and class are weaker and less cross-nationally reliable proxies for PI. We also present strategies for proxying PI when HH post-fisc income data are unavailable, and show how post-fisc HH income proxies PI over the life cycle. In sum, we develop a novel approach to PI, systematically assess proxies for PI, and inform the measurement of economic resources more generally.}, language = {en} } @article{BalderjahnPeyerSeegebarthetal.2018, author = {Balderjahn, Ingo and Peyer, Mathias and Seegebarth, Barbara and Wiedmann, Klaus-Peter and Weber, Anja}, title = {The many faces of sustainability-conscious consumers}, series = {Journal of Business Research}, volume = {91}, journal = {Journal of Business Research}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {New York}, issn = {0148-2963}, doi = {10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.022}, pages = {83 -- 93}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Responding to the global call for a "sustainable economy" requires meaningful insights into sustainability-conscious consumers and their actual buying behaviors. Sustainable consumption is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon because it encompasses several distinct behavioral patterns and consumption types. Therefore, companies are well advised to recognize multiple types of sustainability-conscious consumers with different expectations, attitudes, and values and to implement targeting strategies that do not rest on the assumption of homogeneity. Thus, the objective of this study is to provide a more fine-grained picture of (un)sustainable consumer segments and their differentiated effects in different product markets. Based on three large datasets, we create a robust six-segment typology of consumer consciousness regarding sustainable consumption. By using panel data on actual purchases, the results show not only that sustainability concerns significantly positively influence actual sustainable purchases, as expected, but also that sustainable buying can occur independently of sustainability concerns.}, language = {en} }