340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (79) (remove)
Language
- English (79) (remove)
Keywords
- Paris Agreement (4)
- governance (3)
- intergovernmental relations (3)
- non-state actors (3)
- COVID-19 (2)
- World Bank (2)
- administrative culture (2)
- crisis (2)
- crisis management (2)
- federalism (2)
Institute
The public health insurance in Germany will face huge economic challenges in the upcoming years. New diagnostic and therapeutic methods as well as the demographic change contribute to constantly rising expenditure. Although incentives for health-promoting behaviour or financial sanctions for an unhealthy lifestyle have been already discussed in the past, there has been a general reluctance to legally establish corresponding mechanisms for fear of eroding solidarity and increasing state control. In the course of the Coronavirus pandemic however, a stronger awareness rose to the fact that personal health-related life choices can have a huge impact on the stability of the healthcare system including public health insurance. Not only in Germany but throughout much of Europe, the pandemic led to a new and more fundamental debate about the relationship between individual responsibility for personal health and the wider responsibility for public health assumed by the community of solidarity.
This study examines the institutionalization of information technologies for policy formulation by investigating the case of eNAP. The digital tool was introduced in the spring of 2018 with the aim of supporting and improving sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) within the German Federal Government. Applying a neo-institutional perspective, this study shows how a tool like eNAP is embedded into prevailing regulative, normative, and cultural–cognitive structures. Findings from 10 semi-structured interviews indicate that the application of eNAP varies according to intra-ministerial coordination practices and portfolio-specific information-processing schemata. Overall, the tool serves to translate the abstract regulation to conduct an SIA, as well as to translate the vague norm of “sustainability” into a concrete assessment requirement, thereby helping increase policy officials’ awareness of sustainability goals. However, consistent with previous studies, great importance is not attached to SIAs in policy formulation, and prevailing norms and routines make the implementation of eNAP to increase the use of evidence or in-depth considerations of policy alternatives and their consequences unlikely.
The growing use of digital tools in policy implementation has altered the work of street-level bureaucrats who are granted substantial discretionary power in decision-making. Digital tools can constrain discretionary power, like the curtailment thesis proposed, or serve as action resources, like the enablement thesis suggested. This article assesses empirical evidence of the impact of digital tools on street-level work and decision-making in service-oriented and regulation-oriented organisations based on a systematic literature review and thematic qualitative content analysis of 36 empirical studies published until 2021. The findings demonstrate different effects with regard to the role of digital tools and the core tasks of the public administration, depending on political and managerial goals and consequent system design. Leading or decisive digital tools mostly curtail discretion, especially in service-oriented organisations. In contrast, an enhanced information base or recommendations for actions enable decision-making, in particular in regulation-oriented organisations. By showing how street-level bureaucrats actively try to resist the curtailing effects caused by rigid design to address individual circumstances, for instance by establishing ways of coping like rule bending or rule breaking, using personal resources or prioritising among clients, this study demonstrates the importance of the continuation thesis and the persistently crucial role of human judgement in policy implementation.
In which negotiation contexts are transitional justice provisions included in peace agreements? Today, many peace agreements include transitional justice provisions, but their inclusion differs based on conflict and negotiation characteristics. While context thus seems to be relevant for the choice of transitional justice provisions agreed on by the warring parties, very little is known about the context clusters that enable transitional justice. Using data on 58 full peace agreements signed between 1989 and 2018, a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) investigates the combinations of conflict intensity, rebel group strength, type of conflict, third-party support and civil society participation that led to the inclusion of transitional justice provisions. The result of this exploratory study suggests four context settings that are identified as being empirically relevant for the inclusion of transitional justice provisions. Choices of justice are thus the result of an overall negotiation environment characterized by multiple interrelated context factors.
Confronted with a new wave of criticism on the in effectiveness of its development programs, the World Bank embarked on a revitalization process, turning to private investors to finance International Development Association projects and widening its mandate. To explain these adaptation strategies of the World Bank to regain relevance, this piece draws on organizational ecology and orchestration scholarship. We contend that international organizations rely on two adaptation mechanisms, orchestration and scope expansion, when they lose their role as focal actors in an issue area. We find that the World Bank has indeed lost market share and has relied on these two mechanisms to revitalize itself. We show that the World Bank responded to changes in the environment by orchestrating a private sector-oriented capital increase, prioritizing private funding for development through a “cascade approach,” and expanding the scope of its mandate into adjacent domains of transnational governance, including climate change and global health.
Jurisdiction
(2022)
Scholars have recently devoted increasing attention to the role and function of international bureaucracies in global policymaking. Some of them contend that international public officials have gained significant political influence in various policy fields. Compared to other international bureaucracies, the political leeway of the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been considered rather limited. Due to the specific problem structure of the policy domain of climate change, national governments endowed this intergovernmental treaty secretariat with a relatively narrow mandate. However, this article argues that in the past few years, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has gradually loosened its straitjacket and expanded its original spectrum of activity by engaging different sub-national and non-state actors into a policy dialogue using facilitative orchestration as a mode of governance. The present article explores the recent evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat and investigates the way in which it initiates, guides, broadens and strengthens sub-national and non-state climate actions to achieve progress in the international climate negotiations. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has lately adopted new roles and functions in global climate policymaking. While previously seen as a rather technocratic body that, first and foremost, serves national governments, the Climate Secretariat increasingly interacts with sub-national governments, civil society organizations and private companies to push the global response to climate change forward. We contend that the Climate Secretariat can contribute to global climate policymaking by coordinating and steering the initiatives of non-nation-state actors towards coherence and good practice.
Private international law (PIL) might seem disconnected from peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts. However, this perception falls short. PIL, contrary to public international law’s direct peacekeeping potential, indirectly contributes to peace by fostering mutual respect between states. The relationship between PIL and peace stems from the recognition and respect states show for each other’s legal systems. PIL operates on the principle of comity, where states acknowledge the applicability of foreign laws to resolve cases. In essence, while PIL’s impact on peace is indirect and modest, its emphasis on mutual respect and fair treatment contributes to peaceful relations between states, making it an important element in the broader context of peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts. Private international law (PIL) does not determine substantive fairness for parties but focuses on localizing cases at a meta-level of conflict-of-laws. This localization is guided by party, trade, and regulatory interests, and is rooted in neutrality and respect for other legal systems. While the principle of equivalence and neutrality remains foundational in PIL, exceptions and limitations have been established over time to address specific scenarios, ensuring a balanced approach that respects both foreign legal systems and fundamental legal principles.
Cross-national variation in the relationship between welfare generosity and single mother employment
(2022)
Reform of the U.S. welfare system in 1996 spurred claims that cuts to welfare programs effectively incentivized single mothers to find employment. It is difficult to assess the veracity of those claims, however, absent evidence of how the relationship between welfare benefits and single mother employment generalizes across countries. This study combines data from the European Union Labour Force Survey and the U.S. Current Population Survey (1992-2015) into one of the largest samples of single mothers ever, testing the relationships between welfare generosity and single mothers’ employment and work hours. We find no consistent evidence of a negative relationship between welfare generosity and single mother employment outcomes. Rather, we find tremendous cross-national heterogeneity, which does not clearly correspond to well-known institutional variations. Our findings demonstrate the limitations of single country studies and the pervasive, salient interactions between institutional contexts and social policies.
Gary Jacobsohn and Yaniv Roznai’s (2020) book Constitutional Revolution offers a sophisticated conceptual framework with a fascinating description of empirical occurrences of substantive revolutions in the practice and understanding of constitutionalism in Germany, India, Hungary, and Israel. While the conceptualization in the book and its empirical illustration clearly draw from regime transformations or substantive changes within democratic regimes, we know little about the extent to which substantive constitutional reforms are possible and meaningful in autocratic regimes. As their concept of constitutional revolution is ambiguous and requires a substantive engagement with an individual case at hand, we cannot sim- ply expect concept equivalence when expanding its use beyond a transitory or democratic context. Hence, in this contribution I ask, What constitutes a constitutional revolution in an autocratic regime? To shed light on this question, I rely on the expectation that we do not find important differences in the substance of autocratic constitutions compared to democratic constitutions. Autocratic elites, also, under- stand the possibilities of constitutional change and respond to them as they offer regime stability and simply more power, but that is not a revolution. Therefore, I argue that the substantive meaning of an amendment must be a departure from the inherent logic of the constitution, especially outside the standard procedures for autocratic ruling. Thus, in this paper I discuss the theoretical implications of a constitutional revolution under autocracy without a regime transition and provide empirical evidence from various constitutional amendments and de facto reforms in Russia. I show that a constitutional revolution is not always the most important or most discussed constitutional change—at least, not in an autocratic context. This discussion has important implications for understanding constitutionalism and autocratic stability and the largely overlooked relationship between substance and process in nondemocratic settings.