Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (28)
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2023 (28) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (28) (entfernen)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (28)
Schlagworte
- presidentialism (2)
- Anti-Feminismus (1)
- Anti-Gender (1)
- Anti-LGBTQI* (1)
- Conseil de sécurité (1)
- Consejo de Seguridad (1)
- Deutschland (1)
- Gobernanza de los Comités (1)
- Irak (1)
- Iraq (1)
Institut
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (28) (entfernen)
Über kaum ein Thema werden so hitzige Debatten geführt wie über Geschlechtsidentität. Das Wissen darum, dass Gender sozial konstruiert ist, wird von Anti-Gender Aktivist*innen häufig als ‚Gender-Ideologie‘ bezeichnet und ruft heftige Gegenreaktionen hervor. Dies gilt nicht nur in Deutschland – sondern länderübergreifend. Auffällig viele der transnationalen Anti- Gender Mobilisierungen der letzten 20 Jahre finden bezogen auf Bildungseinrichtungen statt. Dieser Beitrag widmet sich der besonderen Rolle der Universität und der Wissenschaft für transnationale Anti-Gender Diskurse. Anhand verschiedener Beispiele zeige ich auf, dass das Verhältnis zwischen Anti-Gender Bewegungen und Wissenschaft geprägt ist von widersprüchlichen Dynamiken, von Abgrenzung aber auch Imitation. In ihrem Zusammenspiel wirken beide Dynamiken mobilisierend und tragen zum Erstarken regressiver Rollenbilder und antidemokratischer rechter Bewegungen in der breiteren Gesellschaft bei. Der letzte Teil des Beitrags ruft daher zu mehr Selbstreflexion der wissenschaftlichen Praxis auf Grundlage feministischer und intersektionaler Ansätze auf.
This article responds to critical reflections on my Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism by Sarah Birch, Kevin J. Elliott, Claudia Landwehr and James L. Wilson. It discusses how different types of representative democracy, especially different forms of government (presidential, parliamentary or hybrid), can be justified. It clarifies, among other things, the distinction between procedural and process equality, the strengths of semi-parliamentary government, the potential instability of constitutional designs, and the difference that theories can make in actual processes of constitutional reform.
Dieser Beitrag befasst sich mit der Einsatzbereitschaft der Bundeswehr, sich an Auslandseinsätzen im gesamten Konfliktspektrum beteiligen zu können. Vor dem Hintergrund der „Zeitenwende“ werden drei Konflikte unterschiedlicher Intensität in der Ukraine, Afghanistan und Mali untersucht. Er bewertet sodann das Leistungspotenzial der Bundeswehr und gibt Empfehlungen für den Fähigkeitenaufbau: Neben der Modernisierung des Panzer- und Artilleriedispositivs fehlen vor allem Drohnen zur Fernaufklärung und als verharrende Waffen sowie eine wirksame Luftunterstützung – die jedoch in zwischenstaatlichen Konflikten hoher Intensität nur eingeschränkt einsetzbar sein wird.
Review symposium
(2023)
Steffen Ganghof’s Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism: Democratic Design and the Separation of Powers (Oxford University Press, 2021) posits that “in a democracy, a constitutional separation of powers between the executive and the assembly may be desirable, but the constitutional concentration of executive power in a single human being is not” (Ganghof, 2021). To consider, examine and theorise about this, Ganghof urges engagement with semi-parliamentarism. As explained by Ganghof, legislative power is shared between two democratically legitimate sections of parliament in a semi-parliamentary system, but only one of those sections selects the government and can remove it in a no-confidence vote. Consequently, power is dispersed and not concentrated in the hands of any one person, which, Ganghof argues, can lead to an enhanced form of parliamentary democracy. In this book review symposium, George Tsebelis, Michael Thies, José Antonio Cheibub, Rosalind Dixon and Daniel Bogéa review Steffen Ganghof’s book and engage with the author about aspects of research design, case selection and theoretical argument. This symposium arose from an engaging and constructive discussion of the book at a seminar hosted by Texas A&M University in 2022. We thank Prof José Cheibub (Texas A&M) for organising that seminar and Dr Anna Fruhstorfer (University of Potsdam) for initiating this book review symposium.
Recent debates in international relations increasingly focus on bureaucratic apparatuses of international organizations and highlight their role, influence, and autonomy in global public policy. In this contribution we follow the recent call made by Moloney and Rosenbloom in this journal to make use of “public administrative theory and empirically based knowledge in analyzing the behavior of international and regional organizations” and offer a systematic analysis of the inner structures of these administrative bodies. Changes in these structures can reflect both the (re-)assignment of responsibilities, competencies, and expertise, but also the (re)allocation of resources, staff, and corresponding signalling of priorities. Based on organizational charts, we study structural changes within 46 international bureaucracies in the UN system. Tracing formal changes to all internal units over two decades, this contribution provides the first longitudinal assessment of structural change at the international level. We demonstrate that the inner structures of international bureaucracies in the UN system became more fragmented over time but also experienced considerable volatility with periods of structural growth and retrenchment. The analysis also suggests that IO's political features yield stronger explanatory power for explaining these structural changes than bureaucratic determinants. We conclude that the politics of structural change in international bureaucracies is a missing piece in the current debate on international public administrations that complements existing research perspectives by reiterating the importance of the political context of international bureaucracies as actors in global governance.
In recent years, governments have increased their efforts to strengthen the citizen-orientation in policy design. They have established temporary arenas as well as permanent units inside the machinery of government to integrate citizens into policy formulation, leading to a “laboratorization” of central government organizations. We argue that the evolution and role of these units herald new dynamics in the importance of organizational reputation for executive politics. These actors deviate from the classic palette of organizational units inside the machinery of government and thus require their own reputation vis-à-vis various audiences within and outside their parent organization. Based on a comparative case study of two of these units inside the German federal bureaucracy, we show how ambiguous expectations of their audiences challenge their organizational reputation. Both units resolve these tensions by balancing their weaker professional and procedural reputation with a stronger performative and moral reputation. We conclude that government units aiming to improve citizen orientation in policy design may benefit from engaging with citizens as their external audience to compensate for a weaker reputation in the eyes of their audiences inside the government organization. Points for practitioners: many governments have introduced novel means to strengthen citizen-centered policy design, which has led to an emergence of novel units inside central government that differ from traditional bureaucratic structures and procedures ; this study analyzes how these new units may build their organizational reputation vis-à-vis internal and external actors in government policymaking. ; we show that such units assert themselves primarily based on their performative and moral reputation.
Worldwide, governments have introduced novel information and communication technologies (ICTs) for policy formulation and service delivery, radically changing the working environment of government employees. Following the debate on work stress and particularly on technostress, we argue that the use of ICTs triggers “digital overload” that decreases government employees’ job satisfaction via inhibiting their job autonomy. Contrary to prior research, we consider job autonomy as a consequence rather than a determinant of digital overload, because ICT-use accelerates work routines and interruptions and eventually diminishes employees’ freedom to decide how to work. Based on novel survey data from government employees in Germany, Italy, and Norway, our structural equation modeling (SEM) confirms a significant negative effect of digital overload on job autonomy. More importantly, job autonomy partially mediates the negative relationship between digital overload and job satisfaction, pointing to the importance of studying the micro-foundations of ICT-use in the public sector.
Creativity is a crucial part of policy capacity in governments. Existing studies on creative behavior in the public sector assess employees' openness to new ideas and creative solutions, and they confirm the relevance of organizational and individual determinants for pro-creativity attitudes. Yet we lack systemic evidence on the explicit level of work-related creativity among policy officials in government organizations. At the same time, novel technologies and particularly social networking services change the working environment of policy officials radically, alter organizational features, and may also yield crucial individual effects. Our study analyses “policy creativity” of policy officials in three European governments. We demonstrate the importance of organizational and individual features, including the stress triggered by using social networking services. Our study captures officials' creativity explicitly and adds to debates on creativity and innovation in the public sector as well as the micro-level foundations of the digital transformation in the public sector.
Structural duration conveys stability but also resilience in central government and is therefore a key issue in the debate on the structure and organization of government. This paper discusses three core variants of structural duration to study the explanatory relevance of politics. We compare these durations across ministerialunits in four European democracies (Germany, France, The Netherlands, and Norway) from 1980 to 2013, totaling over 17,000 units. Our empirical analyses show that cabinets’ ideological turnover and extremism are the most significant predictors of all variants of duration, whereas polarization in parliament as well as new prime ministers without office experience yield the predicted significant negative effects for most models. We discuss these findings and avenues for futureresearch that acknowledge the definition and measures for structural change as well as temporal aspects of the empirical phenomenon more explicitly.