@book{Schoeps2009, author = {Schoeps, Julius H.}, title = {Das Erbe der Mendelssohns : Biographie einer Familie}, publisher = {Fischer}, address = {Frankfurt am Main}, isbn = {978-3-10-073606-2}, pages = {490 S.}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{BuenningHipp2022, author = {B{\"u}nning, Mareike and Hipp, Lena}, title = {How can we become more equal?}, series = {Journal of European social policy}, volume = {32}, journal = {Journal of European social policy}, number = {2}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {0958-9287}, doi = {10.1177/09589287211035701}, pages = {182 -- 196}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This study examines how public policies affect parents' preferences for a more egalitarian division of paid and unpaid work. Based on the assumption that individuals develop their preferences within a specific policy context, we examine how changes in three policies affect mothers' and fathers' work-family preferences: the availability of high-quality, affordable childcare; the right to return to a full-time job after having reduced hours to part-time and an increase in the number of 'partner months' in parental leave schemes. Analysing a unique probability sample of parents with young children in Germany from 2015 (N = 1756), we find that fathers would want to work slightly fewer hours if they had the right to return to a full-time position after working part-time, and mothers would want to work slightly more hours if childcare opportunities were improved. Full-time working parents, moreover, are found to prefer fewer hours independent of the policy setting, while non-employed parents would like to work at least some hours. Last but not least, our analyses show that increasing the number of partner months in the parental leave scheme considerably increases fathers' preferences for longer and mothers' preferences for shorter leave. Increasing the number of partner months in parental schemes hence has the greatest potential to increase gender equality.}, language = {en} } @article{HippBuenningMunnesetal.2020, author = {Hipp, Lena and B{\"u}nning, Mareike and Munnes, Stefan and Sauermann, Armin}, title = {Problems and pitfalls of retrospective survey questions in COVID-19 studies}, series = {Survey research methods}, volume = {14}, journal = {Survey research methods}, number = {2}, publisher = {European Survey Research Association}, address = {Konstanz}, issn = {1864-3361}, doi = {10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7741}, pages = {109 -- 113}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This paper examines and discusses the biases and pitfalls of retrospective survey questions that are currently being used in many medical, epidemiological, and sociological studies on the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the consistency of answers to retrospective questions provided by respondents who participated in the first two waves of a survey on the social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, we illustrate the insights generated by a large body of survey research on the use of retrospective questions and recall accuracy.}, language = {en} } @article{HippBuenningMunnesetal.2020, author = {Hipp, Lena and B{\"u}nning, Mareike and Munnes, Stefan and Sauermann, Armin}, title = {Commentary zu: Schaurer, Ines; Weiß, Bernd: Investigating selection bias of online surveys on coronavirus-related behavioral outcomes}, series = {Survey research methods}, volume = {14}, journal = {Survey research methods}, number = {2}, publisher = {European Survey Research Association}, address = {Duisburg}, issn = {1864-3361}, doi = {10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7751}, pages = {107 -- 108}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{MelligerLilliestam2021, author = {Melliger, Marc Andr{\´e} and Lilliestam, Johan}, title = {Effects of coordinating support policy changes on renewable power investor choices in Europe}, series = {Energy policy : the international journal of the political, economic, planning, environmental and social aspects of energy}, volume = {148}, journal = {Energy policy : the international journal of the political, economic, planning, environmental and social aspects of energy}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0301-4215}, doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111993}, pages = {20}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The economic context for renewable power in Europe is shifting: feed-in tariffs are replaced by auctioned premiums as the main support schemes. As renewables approach competitiveness, political pressure mounts to phase out support, whereas some other actors perceive a need for continued fixed-price support. We investigate how the phase-out of support or the reintroduction of feed-in tariffs would affect investors' choices for renewables through a conjoint analysis. In particular, we analyse the impact of coordination - the simultaneousness - of policy changes across countries and technologies. We find that investment choices are not strongly affected if policy changes are coordinated and returns unaffected. However, if policy changes are uncoordinated, investments shift to still supported - less mature and costlier - technologies or countries where support remains or is reintroduced. This shift is particularly strong for large investors and could potentially skew the European power mix towards an over-reliance on a single, less mature technology or specific generation region, resulting in a more expensive power system. If European countries want to change their renewable power support policies, and especially if they phase out support and expose renewables to market competition, it is important that they coordinate their actions.}, language = {en} } @article{LilliestamMelligerOllieretal.2020, author = {Lilliestam, Johan and Melliger, Marc Andr{\´e} and Ollier, Lana and Schmidt, Tobias S. and Steffen, Bjarne}, title = {Understanding and accounting for the effect of exchange rate fluctuations on global learning rates}, series = {Nature energy}, volume = {5}, journal = {Nature energy}, number = {1}, publisher = {Nature Publishing Group}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2058-7546}, doi = {10.1038/s41560-019-0531-y}, pages = {71 -- 78}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Learning rates are a central concept in energy system models and integrated assessment models, as they allow researchers to project the future costs of new technologies and to optimize energy system costs. Here we argue that exchange rate fluctuations are an important, but thus far overlooked, determinant of the learning-rate variance observed in the literature. We explore how empirically observed global learning rates depend on where technologies are installed and which currency is used to calculate the learning rate. Using global data of large-scale photovoltaic (>= 5 MW) plants, we show that the currency choice can result in learning-rate differences of up to 16 percentage points. We then introduce an adjustment factor to correct for the effect of exchange rate and market focus fluctuations and discuss the implications of our findings for innovation scholars, energy modellers and decision makers.
Learning rates are a measure of reduction in costs of energy from technologies such as solar photovoltaics. These are often estimated internationally with all monetary figures converted to a single currency, often US dollars. Lilliestam et al. show that such conversions can significantly affect the learning rate estimates.}, language = {en} } @article{OllierMelligerLilliestam2020, author = {Ollier, Lana and Melliger, Marc Andr{\´e} and Lilliestam, Johan}, title = {Friends or foes?}, series = {Energies : open-access journal of related scientific research, technology development and studies in policy and management}, volume = {13}, journal = {Energies : open-access journal of related scientific research, technology development and studies in policy and management}, number = {23}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {1996-1073}, doi = {10.3390/en13236339}, pages = {23}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Energy efficiency measures and the deployment of renewable energy are commonly presented as two sides of the same coin-as necessary and synergistic measures to decarbonize energy systems and reach the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. Here, we quantitatively investigate the policies and performances of the EU Member States to see whether renewables and energy efficiency policies are politically synergistic or if they rather compete for political attention and resources. We find that Member States, especially the ones perceived as climate leaders, tend to prioritize renewables over energy efficiency in target setting. Further, almost every country performs well in either renewable energy or energy efficiency, but rarely performs well in both. We find no support for the assertion that the policies are synergistic, but some evidence that they compete. However, multi-linear regression models for performance show that performance, especially in energy efficiency, is also strongly associated with general economic growth cycles, and not only efficiency policy as such. We conclude that renewable energy and energy efficiency are not synergistic policies, and that there is some competition between them.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Bombart2020, author = {Bombart, Diane}, title = {The geometry of a complex institution}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-48872}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-488724}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {181}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Organizations incorporate the institutional demands from their environment in order to be deemed legitimate and survive. Yet, complexifying societies promulgate multiple and sometimes inconsistent institutional prescriptions. When these prescriptions collide, organizations are said to face "institutional complexity". How does an organization then incorporate incompatible demands? What are the consequences of institutional complexity for an organization? The literature provides contradictory conceptual and empirical insights on the matter. A central assumption, however, remains that internal incompatibilities generate tensions that, under certain conditions, can escalate into intractable conflicts, resulting in dysfunctionality and loss of legitimacy. The present research is an inquiry into what happens inside an organization when it incorporates complex institutional demands. To answer this question, I focus on how individuals inside an organization interpret a complex institutional prescription. I examine how members of the French Development Agency interpret 'results-based management', a central but complex concept of organizing in the field of development aid. I use an inductive mixed methods design to systematically explore how different interpretations of results-based management relate to one another and to the organizational context in which they are embedded. The results reveal that results-based management is a contested concept in the French Development Agency. I find multiple interpretations of the concept, which are attached to partly incompatible rationales about "who we are" and "what we do as an organization". These rationales nevertheless coexist as balanced forces, without escalating into open conflict. The analysis points to four reasons for this peaceful coexistence of diverging rationales inside one and the same organization: 1) individuals' capacity to manipulate different interpretations of a complex institutional demand, 2) the nature of interpretations, which makes them more or less prone to conflict, 3) the balanced distribution of rationales across the organizational sub-contexts and 4) the shared rules of interpretation provided by the larger socio-cultural context. This research shows that an organization that incorporates institutional complexity comes to represent different, partly incompatible things to its members without being at war with itself. In doing so, it contributes to our knowledge of institutional complexity and organizational hybridity. It also advances our understanding of internal organizational legitimacy and of the translation of managerial concepts in organizations.}, language = {en} } @book{OPUS4-44406, title = {Eskalation}, editor = {Malthaner, Stefan and Teune, Simon and Ullrich, Peter}, publisher = {Technische Universit{\"a}t Berlin}, address = {Berlin}, doi = {10.14279/depositonce-7331}, pages = {91}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Die Ereignisse um den G20-Gipfel im Juli 2017 haben viele Menschen schockiert und die Hamburger Stadtgesellschaft gespalten. Sie stehen in starkem Kontrast zu dem Sicherheitsversprechen, das der Senat im Vorfeld abgegeben hat, ebenso wie zu der Ank{\"u}ndigung, der Gipfel werde ein „Festival der Demokratie". Dass ein Gipfelprotest in Unruhen mit breiter Beteiligung {\"u}berging aber auch das teils gewaltsame polizeiliche Vorgehen gegen Protestierende ist erkl{\"a}rungsbed{\"u}rftig. In der anhaltenden Diskussion {\"u}ber die Hintergr{\"u}nde der Auseinandersetzungen werden zumeist entweder die Polizei oder „gewaltbereite Gruppen" f{\"u}r das Ausmaß der Gewalt verantwortlich gemacht. Letzteres l{\"a}sst sich jedoch nur bedingt aus Motiven und vorgefassten Pl{\"a}nen bestimmter Akteure ableiten. Ein großer Teil der Gewalt entsteht - dies ger{\"a}t allzu oft aus dem Blick - maßgeblich in Prozessen der Eskalation, in denen die Handlungen der verschiedenen Beteiligten miteinander verflochten sind, insofern sie auf Grundlage ihrer Deutung vorangegangener Erfahrungen und ihrer Wahrnehmung des Gegen{\"u}bers aufeinander reagieren. Situationen der Gewalt haben zudem ihre eigene, in manchen F{\"a}llen kaum steuerbare, Dynamik. Der Bericht rekonstruiert, wie und warum die Gewalt in Hamburg in dieser Form eskalierte. Er enth{\"a}lt sich weitgehend einer moralischen Einordnung. Er beleuchtet konkrete Situationen des Aufeinandertreffens der Konfliktparteien und bettet sie in einen gr{\"o}ßeren Kontext ein, unter anderem in Hinblick auf die Konstitution der beteiligten Gruppen und in Hinblick auf die mediale Deutung des Geschehens. Der Bericht fasst die ersten Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojektes zusammen, an dem {\"u}ber acht Monate mehr als 20 Gewalt-, Protest- und Polizeiforscher*innen mitgewirkt haben. Er beruht auf einer Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Quellen: Interviews mit Beteiligten, Dokumente, Filmaufnahmen und Fotografien, die Kommunikation auf Twitter und die Berichterstattung in ausgew{\"a}hlten Tageszeitungen, Beobachtungsprotokolle aus der Protestwoche und danach. Die Analyse gliedert sich in drei Teile. (1) Die Ausgangskonstellation, in der sich die unmittelbar Beteiligten, Polizei und Protestierende, auf die Protestwoche einstellen und pr{\"a}gende Grundkonflikte sichtbar werden. (2) Schl{\"u}sselsituationen, in denen Konflikte ausgetragen werden und die Muster der Eskalation im Kleinen sichtbar machen. (3) Die mediale Deutung und Formung der Ereignisse, {\"u}ber die der Fokus auf „Gewalt" verst{\"a}rkt und die jeweils eigene Wahrnehmung best{\"a}tigt wird. F{\"u}r die Analyse der Entstehung von Gewalt ist der Fall ein eindr{\"u}ckliches Beispiel f{\"u}r die Verkettung von Ereignissen ebenso wie f{\"u}r die Eigendynamik situativer Konfrontationen. Dies bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass die Planungen, Erwartungen und Entscheidungen der Handelnden keine Rolle spielen w{\"u}rden. Die Dynamik des Geschehens verwirklicht sich, im Gegenteil, gerade darin, dass die Beteiligten in der Verflechtung ihrer Handlungen ihre Kalkulationen ver{\"a}ndern und Situationsdeutungen entwickeln, welche Gewalt m{\"o}glich oder notwendig erscheinen lassen}, language = {de} } @phdthesis{Schneider2015, author = {Schneider, Stefan}, title = {Mehr Wirkungsorientierung in Kommunen}, series = {Difu-Impulse}, volume = {4}, journal = {Difu-Impulse}, publisher = {Deutsches Institut f{\"u}r Urbanistik gGmbH}, address = {Berlin}, isbn = {978-3-88118-545-5}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {200}, year = {2015}, language = {de} }