Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (176) (remove)
Keywords
- Organisationstheorie (4)
- governance (4)
- Deutschland (3)
- Germany (3)
- Governance (3)
- Migration (3)
- Netzwerkanalyse (3)
- Partizipation (3)
- migration (3)
- participation (3)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (176)
Das Unterrichtsfach "Politische Bildung" in Brandenburg : eine qualitative und quantitative Studie
(2006)
Fundraising interdisziplinär : ein Beitrag zur Erneuerung der Kultur gemeinwohlbezogenen Gebens
(2011)
Verfassungsgericht, Regierung und Opposition : die vergleichende Analyse eines Spannungsdreiecks
(2007)
Klassengebundene Cleavage-Strukturen in Ost- und Westdeutschland : eine empirische Untersuchung
(2007)
Die Empirie des beginnenden 21. Jahrhunderts weist mehr autoritäre Regime aus als am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts angenommen. Die gegenwärtige Autoritarismusforschung versucht die Fortdauer dieses Regimetyps in Hinblick auf die politischen Institutionen zu erklären – dabei bleiben politische Akteure, die nicht zum Herrschaftszentrum gehören, außen vor.
Das vorliegende Projekt untersucht die Rolle und Funktion politischer Opposition in autoritären Regimen. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass sich an der Opposition eine signifikante Charakteristik autoritärer Regime manifestiert. Das akteurszentrierte Projekt ist der qualitativ orientierten Politikwissenschaft zuzurechnen und verknüpft das Autoritarismuskonzept von Juan Linz mit klassischen Ansätzen der Oppositionsforschung und macht diese Theorien für die gegenwärtige Autoritarismusforschung nutzbar.
Die eigens entwickelte elitenorientierte Oppositionstypologie wird am Beispiel Kenias im Zeitraum 1990-2005 angewendet. Die Oppositionsgruppen werden im Institutionengefüge autoritärer Regime verortet und ihr politisches Agieren in den Dimensionen Handlungsstatus, Handlungsüberzeugung und Handlungsstrategie analysiert. Unter Beachtung der historisch gewachsenen regionalen und kulturellen Spezifika wird angenommen, dass generelle, Regionen übergreifende Aussagen zur Opposition in autoritären Regimen getroffen werden können: Kein Oppositionstyp kann allein einen Herrschaftswechsel bewirken. Der Wechsel bzw. die Fortdauer der Herrschaft hängt von der Dominanz bestimmter Oppositionstypen im Oppositionsgeflecht sowie der gleichzeitigen Schwäche anderer Oppositionstypen ab.
Durch die konzeptionelle Beschäftigung mit Opposition sowie deren empirische Erschließung soll ein substantieller Beitrag für die notwendige Debatte um autoritäre Regime im 21. Jahrhundert geleistet werden.
In the debate on how to govern sustainable development, a central question concerns the interaction between knowledge about sustainability and policy developments. The discourse on what constitutes sustainable development conflict on some of the most basic issues, including the proper definitions, instruments and indicators of what should be ‘developed’ or ‘sustained’. Whereas earlier research on the role of (scientific) knowledge in policy adopted a rationalist-positivist view of knowledge as the basis for ‘evidence-based policy making’, recent literature on knowledge creation and transfer processes has instead pointed towards aspects of knowledge-policy ‘co-production’ (Jasanoff 2004). It is highlighted that knowledge utilisation is not just a matter of the quality of the knowledge as such, but a question of which knowledge fits with the institutional context and dominant power structures. Just as knowledge supports and justifies certain policy, policy can produce and stabilise certain knowledge. Moreover, rather than viewing knowledge-policy interaction as a linear and uni-directional model, this conceptualization is based on an assumption of the policy process as being more anarchic and unpredictable, something Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) has famously termed the ‘garbage-can model’.
The present dissertation focuses on the interplay between knowledge and policy in sustainability governance. It takes stock with the practice of ‘Management by Objectives and Results’ (MBOR: Lundqvist 2004) whereby policy actors define sustainable development goals (based on certain knowledge) and are expected to let these definitions guide policy developments as well as evaluate whether sustainability improves or not. As such a knowledge-policy instrument, Sustainability Indicators (SI:s) help both (subjectively) construct ‘social meaning’ about sustainability and (objectively) influence policy and measure its success. The different articles in this cumulative dissertation analyse the development, implementation and policy support (personal and institutional) of Sustainability Indicators as an instrument for MBOR in a variety of settings. More specifically, the articles centre on the question of how sustainability definitions and measurement tools on the one hand (knowledge) and policy instruments and political power structures on the other, are co-produced.
A first article examines the normative foundations of popular international SI:s and country rankings. Combining theoretical (constructivist) analysis with factor analysis, it analyses how the input variable structure of SI:s are related to different sustainability paradigms, producing a different output in terms of which countries (developed versus developing) are most highly ranked. Such a theoretical input-output analysis points towards a potential problem of SI:s becoming a sort of ‘circular argumentation constructs’. The article thus, highlights on a quantitative basis what others have noted qualitatively – that different definitions and interpretations of sustainability influence indicator output to the point of contradiction. The normative aspects of SI:s does thereby not merely concern the question of which indicators to use for what purposes, but also the more fundamental question of how normative and political bias are intrinsically a part of the measurement instrument as such. The study argues that, although no indicator can be expected to tell the sustainability ‘truth-out-there’, a theoretical localization of indicators – and of the input variable structure – may help facilitate interpretation of SI output and the choice of which indicators to use for what (policy or academic) purpose.
A second article examines the co-production of knowledge and policy in German sustainability governance. It focuses on the German sustainability strategy ‘Perspektiven für Deutschland’ (2002), a strategy that stands out both in an international comparison of national sustainability strategies as well as among German government policy strategies because of its relative stability over five consecutive government constellations, its rather high status and increasingly coercive nature. The study analyses what impact the sustainability strategy has had on the policy process between 2002 and 2015, in terms of defining problems and shaping policy processes. Contrasting rationalist and constructivist perspectives on the role of knowledge in policy, two factors, namely the level of (scientific and political) consensus about policy goals and the ‘contextual fit’ of problem definitions, are found to be main factors explaining how different aspects of the strategy is used. Moreover, the study argues that SI:s are part of a continuous process of ‘structuring’ in which indicator, user and context factors together help structure the sustainability challenge in such a way that it becomes more manageable for government policy.
A third article examines how 31 European countries have built supportive institutions of MBOR between 1992 and 2012. In particular during the 1990s and early 2000s much hope was put into the institutionalisation of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) as a way to overcome sectoral thinking in sustainability policy making and integrate issues of environmental sustainability into all government policy. However, despite high political backing (FN, EU, OECD), implementation of EPI seems to differ widely among countries. The study is a quantitative longitudinal cross-country comparison of how countries’ ‘EPI architectures’ have developed over time. Moreover, it asks which ‘EPI architectures’ seem to be more effective in producing more ‘stringent’ sustainability policy.
Seit Jahren steigen Politikverdrossenheit und die Zahl der Menschen an, die sich von der Gesellschaft exkludiert fühlen. Können Basisaktivierung durch Quartiersmanagement und Community Organizing diesen Trends entgegenwirken? Fördert die Ermöglichung der gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe von benachteiligten Bevölkerungsgruppen die Sozialkapitalbildung im Sinne Putnams? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, wurden die vorhandene Literatur analysiert und zahlreiche Experteninterviews geführt.
Welfare states and policies have changed greatly over the past decades, mostly characterized by retrenchments in terms of government spending or in terms of restricted access to certain benefits. In the area of family policies, however, a lot of countries have simultaneously expanded provisions and transfers for families. Bringing together the macro analysis of policy variation and household income changes on the micro-level, the main research question of the dissertation is to what extent economic consequences following separation and divorce in families with children have changed between the 1980s and the 2000s in Germany and the United States. The second research question of the dissertation regards the differences in dissolution outcomes between married and cohabiting parents in Germany.
The dissertation thus aims to link institutional regulations of welfare states with the actual income situation of families. To achieve this, a research design was developed that has never been used for the analysis of the economic consequences of family dissolution. For this, the two longest running panel datasets, German Socio-economic Panel (GSOEP) and the US American Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), have been used. The analytic strategy applied to estimate the effects of family dissolution on household income is a difference-in-difference design combined with coarsened exact matching (CEM).
To begin with, the dissertation confirmed many findings of previous research, for example regarding the gender differences in family dissolution outcomes. Mothers experience clearly higher relative income losses and consequently higher risks of poverty than fathers. This finding is universal, that is it holds for both countries, for all time periods observed, and for all measures of economic outcome that were employed. Another confirmed finding is the higher level of welfare state intervention in Germany compared to the United States.
The dissertation also revealed a number of novel findings. The results show that the expansion of family policies in Germany over time has not been accompanied by substantially decreasing income losses for mothers. Though income losses have slightly decreased over time, they have become more persistent during the years following family dissolution. The impact of the German welfare state has meanwhile been quite stable.
American mothers’ income losses took place on a slightly lower level than those of German mothers. Only during the 1980s their relative losses were clearly lower than those of German mothers. And also American mothers did not recover as much from their income losses during the 2000s than they used to during the 1980s. For them, the 1996 welfare reform brought a considerable decrease in welfare state support. Accordingly, the results for American mothers can certainly be described as a shift from public to private provision.
The general finding of previous studies that fathers do not have to suffer income losses, or if at all rather moderate ones compared to mothers, can be confirmed. Nevertheless, both German and US American fathers face a deterioration of the economic consequences of family dissolution over time. German fathers’ relative income changes are still positive though they have decreased over time. One reason for this decrease is the increasing loss of partner earnings following union dissolution. Also among American fathers, income gains still prevail in the year of family dissolution. Two years later, however, they have been facing income losses already since the 1980s which have furthermore increased considerably over time.
Zooming in on Germany, family dissolution outcomes by marital status show negligible differences between cohabiting and married mothers in disposable income, but considerable differences in losses of income before taxes and transfers. It is the impact of the welfare state that equalizes the differences in income losses between these two groups of mothers. For married mothers, losses are not as high in the year of event but they have difficulties to recover from these losses. Without the income buffering of the welfare state, married mothers would, three years after family dissolution, remain with relative income losses double as high as for cohabiting mothers.
Compared to mothers, differences between married and cohabiting fathers are visible in changes of income before as well as after taxes and transfers. The welfare state does not alter the difference between the two groups of fathers. With regard to both income concepts, cohabiting fathers fare worse than married fathers. Cohabiting fathers suffer moderate income losses of disposable income while married fathers experience moderate income gains. Accounting for support payments is decisive for fathers’ income changes. If these payments are not deducted from disposable income, both married and cohabiting fathers experience gains in disposable income following family dissolution.
Die sozialwissenschaftliche Dissertation nimmt den derzeitigen DIY-Trend, konkret den Handarbeitstrend, in den Fokus. Welche individuellen Gründe und gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen bewegen die Menschen, wieder gemeinsam und/oder allein zu nähen und zu stricken, alte Dinge aufzuwerten oder anders zu nutzen bzw. einfach kreativ zu sein? Ist es der Wunsch nach dem Besonderen, die Abgrenzung von Anderen, der wiedererwachte Sinn für Gemeinschaft oder die Freude an der praktischen Arbeit? Und nicht zuletzt, gibt es eine Verbindung von Handarbeit zu einer nachhaltig orientierten Lebensweise? Ist Handarbeit eine soziale Innovation?
Die Untersuchung basiert auf dem bereichsspezifischen Lebensstilkonzept, welches verschiedene gesellschaftliche Ebenen, die individuelle, gemeinschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Ebene, einschließt. Nach einer historischen Betrachtung der Handarbeit und einer ebenen-spezifischen Literaturschau einschließlich der Auswertung von Experteninterviews zum Thema Handarbeit erfolgt im empirischen Teil die Inhaltsanalyse von zwölf leitfadengestützten problemzentrierten Interviews mit Personen, die in ihrer Freizeit handarbeiten.
Die Untersuchung bestätigt die forschungsleitenden Annahmen. Es wird deutlich, dass bei der Herausbildung der Affinität zur Handarbeit alle drei gesellschaftlichen Ebenen relevant sind: Individuelle Vorerfahrungen und Motivationen spielen ebenso eine Rolle wie die Gemeinschaft und Vernetzung mit Anderen.Gesellschaftlich betrachtet zeigt die Arbeit, dass die historischen Brüche in der Bedeutung der Handarbeit für deren heutigen Stellenwert relevant sind. Handarbeit - und im weiteren Sinne DIY - wird als soziale Innovation wahrgenommen und kann bewusstseinsbildend hinsichtlich nachhaltig orientierter Lebensweisen wirken.