Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (34) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2018 (34) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (17)
- Doctoral Thesis (8)
- Other (3)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Review (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (34)
Keywords
- bicameralism (3)
- Bourdieu (2)
- Executive-legislative relations (2)
- discourse (2)
- field (2)
- parliamentary government (2)
- presidential government (2)
- visions of democracy (2)
- (Verfahrens-)Gerechtigkeit (1)
- Afroamerikaner (1)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (34) (remove)
Intensive bondage
(2018)
Responding to the global call for a "sustainable economy" requires meaningful insights into sustainability-conscious consumers and their actual buying behaviors. Sustainable consumption is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon because it encompasses several distinct behavioral patterns and consumption types. Therefore, companies are well advised to recognize multiple types of sustainability-conscious consumers with different expectations, attitudes, and values and to implement targeting strategies that do not rest on the assumption of homogeneity. Thus, the objective of this study is to provide a more fine-grained picture of (un)sustainable consumer segments and their differentiated effects in different product markets. Based on three large datasets, we create a robust six-segment typology of consumer consciousness regarding sustainable consumption. By using panel data on actual purchases, the results show not only that sustainability concerns significantly positively influence actual sustainable purchases, as expected, but also that sustainable buying can occur independently of sustainability concerns.
Permanent income (PI) is an enduring concept in the social sciences and is highly relevant to the study of inequality. Nevertheless, there has been insufficient progress in measuring PI. We calculate a novel measure of PI with the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Advancing beyond prior approaches, we define PI as the logged average of 20+ years of post-tax and post-transfer ("post-fisc") real equivalized household income. We then assess how well various household- and individual-based measures of economic resources proxy PI. In both datasets, post-fisc household income is the best proxy. One random year of post-fisc household income explains about half of the variation in PI, and 2-5 years explain the vast majority of the variation. One year of post-fisc HH income even predicts PI better than 20+ years of individual labor market earnings or long-term net worth. By contrast, earnings, wealth, occupation, and class are weaker and less cross-nationally reliable proxies for PI. We also present strategies for proxying PI when HH post-fisc income data are unavailable, and show how post-fisc HH income proxies PI over the life cycle. In sum, we develop a novel approach to PI, systematically assess proxies for PI, and inform the measurement of economic resources more generally.
Der organisierte Fall
(2018)
Stefanie Büchner untersucht in ihrer qualitativ-explorativen Studie die Fallbearbeitung in drei Jugendämtern. Sie zeigt, dass sich die Bearbeitung von Fällen nur unzureichend verstehen lässt, wenn man Organisationen primär als Rahmen begreift oder auf ihre formale Logik reduziert. Vielmehr strukturieren Organisationen als soziale Systeme Fallbearbeitung modular. Fünf Module der Strukturierung stehen im Zentrum der Untersuchung: Wie werden Fälle arbeitsteilig bearbeitet und wie schlägt sich Organisation in der Zusammenarbeit mit Klientinnen und Klienten nieder? Wie lässt sich die unterschiedliche Relevanz von Standards beschreiben? Worin besteht die Herausforderung für Jugendämter, Hilfe und Eingriff zu verantworten und was dokumentiert sich in Dokumentation? Für die Beantwortung dieser Fragen plädiert die Autorin für ein komplexes, allgemeines und spezifisches Verständnis von Organisationen im Feld sozialer Hilfe.
The framing of EU policies
(2018)
This chapter discusses how framing analysis can contribute to studies of policy making in the European Union (EU). Framing analysis is understood as an analytical perspective that focuses on how policy problems are constructed and categorised. This analytical perspective allows researchers to reconstruct how shifting problem frames empower competing constituencies and create changing patterns of political participation at the supranational level. Studies that assume a longitudinal perspective on EU policy development show how the framing of EU policy is constitutive of the way in which the jurisdictional boundaries and constitutional mandates of the EU evolve over time. Reviewing the growing body of empirical studies on EU policy framing in the context of the diverse theoretical origins of framing analysis, the chapter argues that framing research which takes seriously the notion that policy-making involves both puzzling and powering allows this analytical perspective to contribute a unique perspective on EU policy making.
A new political system model
(2018)
Semi-parliamentary government is a distinct executive-legislative system that mirrors semi-presidentialism. It exists when the legislature is divided into two equally legitimate parts, only one of which can dismiss the prime minister in a no-confidence vote. This system has distinct advantages over pure parliamentary and presidential systems: it establishes a branch-based separation of powers and can balance the ‘majoritarian’ and ‘proportional’ visions of democracy without concentrating executive power in a single individual. This article analyses bicameral versions of semi-parliamentary government in Australia and Japan, and compares empirical patterns of democracy in the Australian Commonwealth as well as New South Wales to 20 advanced parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. It discusses new semi-parliamentary designs, some of which do not require formal bicameralism, and pays special attention to semi-parliamentary options for democratising the European Union.
The article analyses the type of bicameralism we find in Australia as a distinct executive-legislative system – a hybrid between parliamentary and presidential government – which we call ‘semi-parliamentary government’. We argue that this hybrid presents an important and underappreciated alternative to pure parliamentary government as well as presidential forms of the power-separation, and that it can achieve a certain balance between competing models or visions of democracy. We specify theoretically how the semi-parliamentary separation of powers contributes to the balancing of democratic visions and propose a conceptual framework for comparing democratic visions. We use this framework to locate the Australian Commonwealth, all Australian states and 22 advanced democratic nation-states on a two-dimensional empirical map of democratic patterns for the period from 1995 to 2015.
The article responds to four commentaries on the concept of semi-parliamentary government and its application to Australian bicameralism. It highlights four main points: (1) Our preferred typology is not more ‘normative’ than existing approaches, but applies the criterion of ‘direct election’ equally to executive and legislature; (2) While the evolution of semi-parliamentary government had contingent elements, it plausibly also reflects the ‘equilibrium’ nature of certain institutional configurations; (3) The idea that a pure parliamentary system with pure proportional representation has absolute normative priority over ‘instrumentalist’ concerns about cabinet stability, identifiability and responsibility is questionable; and (4) The reforms we discuss may be unlikely to occur in Australia, but deserve consideration by scholars and institutional reformers in other democratic systems.
Why choice matters
(2018)
Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.