Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (45) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2013 (45) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (27)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (9)
- Doctoral Thesis (6)
- Review (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (45)
Keywords
- accountability (2)
- political equality (2)
- Collective violence (1)
- Conceptions of social orders (1)
- Conflicts of social orders (1)
- Denmark (1)
- Gerald Gaus (1)
- Germany (1)
- Legitimization (1)
- Norway (1)
- Relational sociology (1)
- Social order (1)
- Social relations (1)
- accountability dynamics (1)
- accountability mechanism (1)
- administration (1)
- asylum (1)
- civil service (1)
- coercion (1)
- data protection (1)
- democracy (1)
- discourse analysis (1)
- electoral systems (1)
- hospitals (1)
- immigration (1)
- institutional design (1)
- labour market administration (1)
- majority rule (1)
- minister responsibility (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)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (45) (remove)
This article focuses on the emergence of a decentralized institutional complex, interplay management, and the institutional interplay between the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the EU in the issue area of environmental shipping policies. It shows that the synergistic relationship between both institutions has been driven primarily by commitment and compliance mechanisms. By influencing IMO decision-making and improving the implementation and effectiveness of IMO conventions, the EU has become a driving force in international environmental shipping policies, and its new initiatives may even enhance its leadership role within the IMO in the future. Despite the still-existing lack of cognitive leadership by the EU, the synergies between both institutions provide evidence for the EU's leadership capacities in global environmental politics.
Disintegrating Democracy at Work: Labor Unions and the Future of Good Jobs in the Service Economy
(2013)
In dealing with surveillance, scholars have widely agreed to refute privacy as an analytical concept and defining theme. Nonetheless, in public debates, surveillance technologies are still confronted with issues of privacy, and privacy therefore endures as an empirical subject of research on surveillance. Drawing from our analysis of public discourse of so-called smart closed-circuit television (CCTV) in Germany, we propose to use a sociology of knowledge perspective to analyze privacy in order to understand how it is socially constructed and negotiated. Our data comprise 117 documents, covering all publicly available documents between 2006 and 2010 that we were able to obtain. We found privacy to be the only form of critique in the struggle for the legitimate definition of smart CCTV. In this paper, we discuss the implications our preliminary findings have for the relationship between privacy issues and surveillance technology and conclude with suggestions of how this relationship might be further investigated as paradoxical, yet constitutive.
The article argues that the uprisings during the Arab Spring as well as the riots in either the banlieues of French cities or in London have to be considered as violent conflicts that pose a serious threat to the social orders in which they emerge. These different kinds of social resistance have in common that they communicate more or less developed alternative conceptions of social orders that challenge what has been considered legitimate so far. Until now, sociology has neither successfully explained such kinds of conflicts nor the way they are triggered. Therefore, the article discusses crucial problems of a sociology of violence, i.e. violence as term and concept, theoretical and methodological deficits and, finally, assumptions about the role of violence in conflict-ridden processes of modernization and civilization in general. The article argues that a sociology of violence should concentrate on the nexus of social order and violence in order to explain how and why violent conflicts emerge in specific social contexts. Thus, a sociology of violence should take an effort to reconstruct the crucial social mechanisms that underlie the dynamics of emerging violence in processes of production and reproduction of social order.
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 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.
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.