Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (57) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (22)
- Part of a Book (13)
- Doctoral Thesis (12)
- Master's Thesis (4)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
- Review (2)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (57)
Keywords
- accountability (2)
- decentralization (2)
- local government (2)
- political equality (2)
- visions of democracy (2)
- Acceptance of wind energy (1)
- Accounting standards (1)
- Akteursinteraktion (1)
- Auditing standards (1)
- Autoritarismus (1)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (57) (remove)
The literature on international regulatory regimes has highlighted how rival standards can create different points of convergence. Scholarly attention has also focused on how the European Union (EU) and the United States (USA) attempt to ‘export’ their environmental standards internationally. Here, we explore the effectiveness of these attempts by means of third states' decisions to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a multilateral environmental agreement regulating genetically modified organisms that is promoted by the EU but opposed by the USA. Our findings confirm that both rivals are able to influence the ratification decision of states, but they also suggest that these effects may have different origins. Countries relying more heavily on US markets for food exports tend to be less likely to ratify the Cartagena Protocol, while countries that have applied for EU membership are more likely to ratify the protocol.
An egalitarian approach to the fair representation of voters specifies three main institutional requirements: proportional representation, legislative majority rule and a parliamentary system of government. This approach faces two challenges: the under-determination of the resulting democratic process and the idea of a trade-off between equal voter representation and government accountability. Linking conceptual with comparative analysis, the article argues that we can distinguish three ideal-typical varieties of the egalitarian vision of democracy, based on the stages at which majorities are formed. These varieties do not put different relative normative weight onto equality and accountability, but have different conceptions of both values and their reconciliation. The view that accountability is necessarily linked to ‘clarity of responsibility’, widespread in the comparative literature, is questioned – as is the idea of a general trade-off between representation and accountability. Depending on the vision of democracy, the two values need not be in conflict.
The sociology of violence still struggles with two critical questions: What motivates people to act violently on behalf of groups and how do they come to identify with the groups for which they act? Methodologically the article addresses these puzzling problems in favor of a relational sociology that argues against both micro- and macro-reductionist accounts, while theoretically it proposes a twofold reorientation: first, it makes a plea for the so called cognitive turn in social theory; second, it proposes following praxeological accounts of social action that focus on the dynamic interpenetration of cognition and socio-cultural practices. The argument is that symbolic boundaries constitute the “missing link” that allows for overcoming the micro-macro gap in violence research: Symbolic boundaries can cause people's participation in collective violence by providing the essential relational resources for violent action and by triggering the cognitive/affective mechanisms necessary for social actors to become drawn into mobilization processes that can cause their engaging in coordinated attacks on sites across the boundary. The article offers a new theoretical argument by drawing on knowledge from violence research, social action theory and cognitive science allowing for a non-reductionist theory of action that explains how and why people engage in collective violence.
Decentralizing for performance? A quantitative assessment of functional reforms in the German Lander
(2016)
In the last 10 years, the governments of most of the German Länder initiated administrative reforms. All of these ventures included the municipalization of substantial sets of tasks. As elsewhere, governments argue that service delivery by communes is more cost-efficient, effective and responsive. Empirical evidence to back these claims is inconsistent at best: a considerable number of case studies cast doubt on unconditionally positive appraisals. Decentralization effects seem to vary depending on the performance dimension and task considered. However, questions of generalizability arise as these findings have not yet been backed by more ‘objective’ archival data. We provide empirical evidence on decentralization effects for two different policy fields based on two studies. Thereby, the article presents alternative avenues for research on decentralization effects and matches the theoretical expectations on decentralization effects with more robust results. The analysis confirms that overly positive assertions concerning decentralization effects are only partially warranted. As previous case studies suggested, effects have to be looked at in a much more differentiated way, including starting conditions and distinguishing between the various relevant performance dimensions and policy fields.
Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A growing number of local energy conflicts around wind power and power-grid extensions are slowing down the deployment of the German Energiewende. In this paper, a local conflict on wind energy in the state of Baden-Württemberg is analysed in detail. In the little community of Engelsbrand, local opposition against a planned wind park was able to turn around a set of favourable a priori conditions, such as a supporting state government planning process, a local supporter group, a transparent planning process, including a majority vote pro wind energy, and a round table discussion. Distancing itself from the NIMBY-explanation (‘Not In My Back Yard’), the paper applies insights from discourse network analysis and micro-sociology in order to study the local conflict dynamics. Special attention is given to the resource mobilisation strategies of the opponents, including social networks, mass and social media use. The paper ends by drawing some general conclusions for the German Energiewende.
This article rests on the assumption of the “complexity, messiness, power relations, and contested character of the contemporary dualistic system,” which comprises great powers and “superimposed, functionally differentiated global subsystems of world society” (Cohen 2012:5). The article argues that this framework is being shaped by the current transition of global order. In turn, this raises the question how the state-led negotiation of today's order transition can be understood against the backdrop of a post-Westphalian environment. The article challenges the widespread argument pertaining to the “autonomy of transnational actors” by suggesting that the influence of nonstate actors is dependent on a particular institutional context in which the key political questions framing a social order are settled. Whereas research on international institutions and their design simply assumes that this is the case, here it is argued that unless these framing patterns are agreed upon by major powers, the respective order and its elements, that is, institutions and regimes, remain contested or deadlocked. When this happens, the political impact of non-state actors is largely neutralized or strongly weakened and their effective autonomy from great powers is minimized.
How does the selection of a classical language at school affect prospects on the labor market? Even though research on the impact of horizontal educational inequalities on labor market outcomes has become prominent recently, this question has not yet attracted scholarly attention. Based on several differing approaches (Human Capital Theory, Signaling Theory, Homophily Principle), hypotheses are derived about the impact of the language profile at school on labor market prospects at career entry. To test these assumptions, a field experiment was conducted in which applications were submitted in response to job advertisements. Results show that choosing Latin and Ancient Greek has a positive impact on the chances of being invited to a job interview.
Over the past decade, an increasing number of public organizations involved in marine governance in Europe have adapted their formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management. This study examines why the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), DG FISH of the European Commission, the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR), and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) have changed their sectoral structures into organizations with a geographical focus on marine ecosystems. The study finds that the gradual convergence of formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management is driven by coercive, normative and mimetic processes of isomorphism. The structural changes reflect an organizational adaptation to a changing institutional environment and an Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) focusing on regional marine areas, cross-sector integration and coordination. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.