Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
- 2013 (51) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (27)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (10)
- Doctoral Thesis (9)
- Review (3)
- Other (1)
- Postprint (1)
Keywords
- accountability (2)
- political equality (2)
- Affiliationsnetzwerke (1)
- Ausschüsse (1)
- Cambodia (1)
- Collective violence (1)
- Conceptions of social orders (1)
- Conflicts of social orders (1)
- Denmark (1)
- Dezentralisierung (1)
- Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (1)
- European Union (1)
- European Union research policy (1)
- Europäische Forschungspolitik (1)
- Europäische Union (1)
- Evaluationsnutzung (1)
- Evaluationsverwendung (1)
- Frauenrechte (1)
- Gerald Gaus (1)
- Germany (1)
- India (1)
- Indien (1)
- Informationsflüsse (1)
- Institutionalisierte Evaluationsverfahren (1)
- Kambodscha (1)
- Legitimization (1)
- Minderheiten (1)
- Multiple Modernities (1)
- Netzwerkanalyse (1)
- Norway (1)
- Politikevaluation (1)
- Relational sociology (1)
- Social order (1)
- Social relations (1)
- Vietnamese (1)
- Vietnamesen (1)
- accountability dynamics (1)
- accountability mechanism (1)
- administration (1)
- affiliation networks (1)
- asylum (1)
- civil service (1)
- coercion (1)
- committee governance (1)
- data protection (1)
- decentralization (1)
- democracy (1)
- development cooperation (1)
- discourse analysis (1)
- electoral systems (1)
- evaluation use (1)
- evaluation utilization (1)
- evidence-based policy (1)
- hospitals (1)
- immigration (1)
- indigene Völker (1)
- indigenous peoples (1)
- information flow (1)
- institutional design (1)
- labour market administration (1)
- local NGOs (1)
- lokale Nichtregierungsorganisationen (1)
- majority rule (1)
- minister responsibility (1)
- minorities (1)
- multiple modernities (1)
- network analysis (1)
- policy-evaluation (1)
- privacy (1)
- privatization (1)
- public administration (1)
- public employment service (1)
- public justification (1)
- public-reason liberalism (1)
- second chambers (1)
- smart CCTV (1)
- sociology of knowledge (1)
- video surveillance (1)
- welfare markets (1)
- welfare state reform (1)
- women's rights (1)
Institute
One of the most striking features of recent public sector reform in Europe is privatization. This development raises questions of accountability: By whom and for what are managers of private for-profit organizations delivering public goods held accountable? Analyzing accountability mechanisms through the lens of an institutional organizational approach and on the empirical basis of hospital privatization in Germany, the article contributes to the empirical and theoretical understanding of public accountability of private actors. The analysis suggests that accountability is not declining but rather multiplying. The shifts in the locus and content of accountability cause organizational stress for private hospitals.
The Westminster system places great power upon the Executive with minimal accountabilities. Despite the dissolution of the British Empire, so many countries maintained the Westminster system whether it was transplanted or implanted to their soil. The Westminster system provides various actors with a great potential of increasing power autonomy over others due to the high levels of flexibility and manoeuvrability. Political actors, especially following independence, were able to operate generally unencumbered by fixed and formal institutional expectations. This allowed the countries and their executive, particularly the Prime Minister, the ability to mould and establish constitutional traditions, which in turn shaped the nascent polity that surrounded the real and constitutional independence. This article examines the Westminster systems critical legacy to accountability and its impact on executive power.
The article explores how recent changes in the governance of employment services in three European countries (Denmark, Germany and Norway) have influenced accountability relationships. The overall assumption in the growing literature about accountability is that the number of actors involved in accountability arrangements is rising, that accountability relationships are becoming more numerous and complex, and that these changes may lead to contradictory accountability relationships, and finally to multi accountability disorder'. The article tries to explore these assumptions by analysing the different actors involved and the information requested in the new governance arrangements in all three countries. It concludes that the considerable changes in organizational arrangements and more managerial information demanded and provided have led to more shared forms of accountability. Nevertheless, a clear development towards less political or administrative accountability could not be observed.
Accountability can be conceptualized as institutionalized mechanisms obliging actors to explain their conduct to different forums, which can pose questions and impose sanctions. This article analyses different crises' in immigration policies in Norway, Denmark and Germany along a descriptive framework of five different accountability types: political, administrative, legal, professional and social accountability. The exchanges of information, debate and their consequences between an actor and a forum are crucial to understanding how political-administrative action is carried out in critical situations. First, accountability dynamics emphasize conventional norms and values regarding policy change and, second, formal political responsibility does not necessarily lead to political consequences such as minister resignations in cases of misbehaviour. Consequences strongly depend on how accountability dynamics take place.
Kultursoziologie
(2013)
Vorwort
(2013)
Sansibar und der Klimawandel
(2013)
Political scientists regularly justify particular democratic institutions. This article explores two desiderata for such justifications. The first is a formal equality baseline which puts the burden of justification on those who favour more unequal institutions. This baseline is seen as an implication of the rule of law. The second desideratum, the comparison requirement, builds on the first: adequate justifications of particular institutions must compare them to the best alternative, and this comparison must consider the costs for political equality. The two desiderata are applied to political science debates about the proportionality of the electoral system and bicameral systems of legislative decision-making.
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.
Open Government
(2013)
Bis heute gelingt es kaum, Begriffe rund um die Verwaltungsreform – von New Public Management bis zu den E-Modellen – schlüssig voneinander abzugrenzen. Dieses Defizit wird bei der Betrachtung des Konzepts Open Government erneut sichtbar. Der Begriff Open Government ist dabei nicht nur aus verwaltungswissenschaftlicher, sondern mit Blick auf die Instrumente der direkten Demokratie auch aus politikwissenschaftlicher Perspektive zu betrachten. Handelt es sich um einen Sammelbegriff für hauptsächlich schon Dagewesenes?