Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (78) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (48)
- Part of a Book (16)
- Postprint (5)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (78) (remove)
Keywords
- institutional change (3)
- Deutschland (2)
- Flüchtlingskrise (2)
- International Financial Institutions (2)
- Migration (2)
- Politikberatung (2)
- Union (2)
- World Bank (2)
- bias (2)
- bibliometric analysis (2)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (78) (remove)
In the Middle Ages the European cities constituted the bourgeois laboratory for the formulation and the institutionalisation of the rights of citizenship. In 2014, the urban population accounted already for 54 per cent of global population. Yet, globalisation and neo-liberal policies have significantly challenged the social protection systems and social justice. From a sociological perspective, increased urbanisation implies a state of increased individual freedom, while at once it provokes growing social fragmentation. The chapter focuses on these dialectics and analyses to which degree social fragmentation affects the formal institutionalisation of citizenship rights and the substantial access to formally established rights, while at the same time excluding the most disadvantaged social groups, reducing them to mere ‘denizens’ of urban societies.
Permanent liminality?
(2020)
After more than eight years of multifaceted crisis and extreme austerity policies, the programmes of financial assistance to Greece ended in August 2018, only to be replaced by a strict surveillance plan which leaves little room for manoeuvre towards more socially sensitive policies. In this context, the paper focuses on three major issues of argument between the creditors and the Greek government: property ownership and taxation, reduction of pensions, and continued austerity. Based on research in Athens and starting from the premise that behind figures and statistics lie embodied subjects, the paper discusses these issues drawing from particular people’s experiences.
Introduction
(2020)
This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book considers the complex process of the criminalisation of squatting alongside and beyond its juridical apparatuses. It provides insights into the ways in which the substance of social citizenship has been rapidly and significantly weakened, so that life has become much more precarious for low-income urbanites as well as large parts of the middle-class. The book reconstructs the history of Berlin’s tenant referendum, which induced the passing of a new local Housing Provision Act—one of the most progressive pieces of housing legislation in Germany. It investigates the modes of doing citizenship and social rights in practice, which characterised the creation of Berlin’s Medibüro, a network of medical offices, where medical activists provide free medical services to residents lacking access to the medical insurance system, especially to illegal migrants. The book concludes by providing a brief outlook on future research on urban citizenship.
Heterogenität
(2020)
Germany as a Leading Power
(2020)
Einführung
(2020)
Henrik Ibsen behandelt in seinem Schauspiel Ein Volksfeind (1882) einen Umweltskandal, was das Stück zeitlos aktuell macht. Heutige Inszenierungen können umstandslos an die hier vorgestellten Umweltprobleme und den Umgang damit in der nach dem Mehrheitsprinzip verfahrenden Demokratie anknüpfen. In dem Beitrag wird zunächst der Begriffsgeschichte von „Volksfeind“ nachgegangen, vom Römischen Reich über die Französische Revolution, die totalitären Diktaturen des 20. Jahrhunderts bis zur heutigen Bundesrepublik und den USA. Im Weiteren werden die im Stück thematisierten Verhältnisse von Mehrheit und Minderheit sowie Macht und Recht im politisch-gesellschaftlichen Gefüge vor dem Hintergrund demokratietheoretischer Überlegungen von Alexis die Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill und Emma Goldman untersucht. Schließlich werden die im Volksfeind aufgeworfenen Fragen nach der Möglichkeit von Bildung und politischer Mündigkeit vor dem Hintergrund heutiger postfaktischer Tendenzen, von Politik mit „alternativen Fakten“, Bullshit und Lügen diskutiert.
Eine relevante und höchst aktuelle Überschneidung fachübergreifender und fachspezifischer sprachlicher Phänomene hat Elisabeth Wehling mit ihrem 2016 erschienenen Buch „Politisches Framing“ einer breiten Öffentlichkeit, die weit über fachwissenschaftliche Kreise hinaus geht, dargelegt. Wehling erläutert darin an zahlreichen Beispielen, dass in politischen Debatten und für ihre Wirkung nicht zuerst die vorgetragenen Fakten entscheidend sind, sondern gedankliche Deutungsrahmen — in den Kognitionswissenschaften Frames genannt — die den Fakten eine Bedeutung verleihen. Informationen werden demnach in Relation zu Erfahrungen und Vorwissen als relevant oder irrelevant eingeordnet sowie durch Frames bewertet und interpretiert. Dadurch beeinflussen Frames — häufig unbewusst — Denken und Handeln. (Wehling, S. 17 ff.) Eine Auseinandersetzung mit den von Wehling dargelegten Erkenntnissen im Rahmen des Politikunterrichts ermöglicht die Entwicklung und Förderung von sprachlicher und fachlicher Kompetenz. Dieser Beitrag fasst die von Wehling dargelegten Erkenntnisse zusammen und erläutert das didaktische Potenzial des Themas Politisches Framing anhand kompetenzbezogener Aufgaben für den Politikunterricht.
Dieser Beitrag reflektiert und ergänzt die aktuelle Diskussion über die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats zur Weiterentwicklung der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir richten dabei den Blick auf die vom Wissenschaftsrat attestierten Schwachstellen im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden und erläutern ihre Auswirkungen auf Interdisziplinarität, Internationalität und Politikberatung der deutschen Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir argumentieren, unter Verweis auf den Bericht des Wissenschaftsrats, dass eine breitere Methodenausbildung und -kenntnis von großer Bedeutung für interdisziplinäre und internationale Zusammenarbeit, aber auch für die Politikberatung ist. Zukünftige Initiativen innerhalb der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung sollten die Methodenvielfalt des Forschungsbereichs angemessen berücksichtigen und einen besonderen Fokus auf die Ausbildung im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden legen, um das Forschungsfeld in diesem Bereich zu stärken. Unser Beitrag entspringt einer Diskussion innerhalb des Arbeitskreises „Empirische Methoden der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung“ der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Friedens- und Konfliktforschung.
How do active learning environments—by means of simulations—enhance political science students’ learning outcomes regarding different levels of knowledge? This paper examines different UN simulations in political science courses to demonstrate their pedagogical value and provide empirical evidence for their effectiveness regarding three levels of knowledge (factual, procedural and soft skills). Despite comprehensive theoretical claims about the positive effects of active learning environments on learning outcomes, substantial empirical evidence is limited. Here, we focus on simulations to systematically test previous claims and demonstrate their pedagogical value. Model United Nations (MUNs) have been a popular teaching device in political science. To gain comprehensive data about the active learning effects of MUNs, we collect data and evaluate three simulations covering the whole range of simulation characteristics: a short in-class simulation of the UN Security Council, a regional MUN with different committees being simulated, and two delegations to the National Model United Nations, for which the students prepare for 1 year. Comparative results prove that simulations need to address certain characteristics in order to produce extensive learning outcomes. Only comprehensive simulations are able to achieve all envisioned learning outcomes regarding factual and procedural knowledge about the UN and soft skills.
Die Manosphere
(2020)
Die sogenannte Manosphere – eine digitale Gemeinschaft, die sich hauptsächlich durch misogyne und antifeministische Beiträge und Ideologien auszeichnet – ist aufgrund ihrer Verbindung zu verschiedenen Terroranschlägen in der letzten Zeit verstärkt in das Blickfeld der Medien gelangt. Dieser Beitrag untersucht die bislang häufig vernachlässigte Rolle digitaler Räume und Netzwerke im Kontext regressiver, frauenfeindlicher Ideologien und daraus erwachsende gewalttätige antifeministische Handlungsrepertoires aus Perspektive der Bewegungsforschung. Am Beispiel der Manosphere auf der Plattform Reddit zeige ich, wie durch das Zusammenspiel zwischen technologischer Infrastruktur und regressiver Ideologie die Grundlage für die Mobilisierung und Sozialisierung in antifeministische Bewegungskulturen mit gewalttätigen Handlungsrepertoires on- und offline geschaffen wird.
The United Nations (UN) policy agenda on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) promotes a “holistic” approach to counterterrorism, which includes elements traditionally found in security and development programs. Advocates of the agenda increasingly emphasize the importance of gender mainstreaming for counterterrorism goals. In this article, I scrutinize the merging of the goals of gender equality, security, and development into a global agenda for counterterrorism. A critical feminist discourse-analytical reading of gender representations in P/CVE shows how problematic imageries of women as victims, economic entrepreneurs, and peacemakers from both the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Women, Peace and Security agenda are reproduced in core UN documents advocating for a “holistic” P/CVE approach. By highlighting the tensions that are produced by efforts to merge the different gender discourses across the UN’s security and development institutions, the article underlines the relevance of considering the particular position of P/CVE at the security–development nexus for further gender-sensitive analysis and policies of counterterrorism.
The Other Side
(2020)
Given the current polarization of gender knowledge in the public discourse, this article investigates the "other side" of gender knowledge production. Building on feminist standpoint literature, I conduct a close reading of the affective-discursive dynamics of knowledge production in two anti-feminist online communities in the United States and India. I find that anti-feminist communities appropriate feminist practices of consciousness-raising to construct a shared sense of victimization. This appropriation is, however, incomplete. In contrast to feminist practices, anti-feminist knowledge generation is premised on the polarizing themes of "ultimate victimhood" and "ultimate other," which lead to violence and exclusion, rather than liberation.
Opposites Attract?
(2020)
There are three different interpretations of Adam Smith's trade theory in modern literature: first, the neoclassical theory of absolute advantage; second, an interpretation based on increasing returns; third, an interpretation of uneven development. These interpretations come to widely different conclusions, especially considering the development of the pattern of trade in Smith's theory. I discuss how these three interpretations emerged. They do not stem from a more detailed analysis of Smith's works itself but reflect changes within international trade theory. They all result from the fact that economists have imposed nineteenth- and twentieth-century modes of thoughts on Smith's theory, forcing his writings into later-developed theoretical frameworks. In contrast to classical economists in the nineteenth century, these subsequent interpretations misrepresent Smith's trade theory in order to portray him as a forerunner of later theories. The differing interpretations can thus be explained only against the backdrop of the development of international trade theory.
To ensure political survival, autocrats must prevent popular rebellion, and political repression is a means to that end. However, autocrats face threats from both the inside and the outside of the center of power. They must avoid popular rebellion and at the same time share power with strategic actors who enjoy incentive to challenge established power-sharing arrangements whenever repression is ordered. Can autocrats turn repression in a way that allows trading one threat off against the other? This chapter first argues that prior research offers scant insight on that question because it relies on umbrella concepts and questionable measurements of repression. Next, the chapter disaggregates repression into restrictions and violence and reflects on their drawbacks. Citizens adapt to the restriction of political civil liberties, and violence backfires against its originators. Hence, restrictions require enforcement, and violence requires moderation. When interpreted as complements, it becomes clear that restrictions and violence have the potential to compensate for their respective weaknesses. The complementarity between violence and restrictions turns political repression into a valuable addition to the authoritarian toolkit. The chapter concludes with an application of these ideas to the twin problems of authoritarian control and power-sharing.
This chapter operationalizes the three fundamental concepts of this study. It outlines what counts as authoritarian rule, it explains how to recognize dissent in non-democratic contexts, and it debates how to quantify repression in the shadow of the politicized discourse on human rights. First, the chapter opts to classify every political regime as authoritarian that fails to elect its executive or legislature in free and competitive elections. Second, the chapter proposes to see dissent through the lens of campaigns, i.e., series of connected contentious events that involve large-scale collective action and formulate far-reaching political demands. Finally, after some elaboration on the problems involved in measuring political repression reliably and validly, the chapter turns to rescaled versions of the Human Rights Protection Scores 2.04 and the V-Dem 6.2 political civil liberties index as indicators for violence and restrictions. This choice of indicators of repression is, finally, defended against three central objections: the separability of violence from restrictions, the so-called information paradox, and, finally, differences in the timing of violence and restrictions.
Who owns REDD+?
(2020)
The question of who is entitled to benefit from transactions under the United Nations framework to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) remains one of the most controversial issues surrounding cooperative efforts to reduce deforestation in developing countries. REDD+ has been conceived as an international framework to encourage voluntary efforts in developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon removals from forest activities. It was designed as an international framework under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to enable the generation of emission reductions and removals (ERRs) at the national-and, provisionally, the subnational-level and is, thus, primarily a creature of international law. However, in defining forest carbon ERRs, the international framework competes with national emission trading systems and domestic REDD+ legislation as well as private standards that define units traded on the voluntary carbon market. As results-based and carbon market systems emerge, the question remains: Who can claim participation in REDD+ and voluntary carbon market projects? The existence of different international, national and private standards that value ERRs poses a challenge to countries that participate in REDD+ as well as to communities and private actors participating in voluntary carbon market projects. This paper seeks to clarify the nature and limitation of rights pertaining to REDD+ market transactions. It also links the notion of carbon rights to both carbon markets and government's decision on benefit sharing. Applying a legal lens, this paper helps to understand the various claims and underlying rights to participate in REDD+ transactions and addresses ambiguities that can lead to conflict around REDD+ implementation. The definition of carbon rights and the legal nature of carbon credits depend on local law and differ between countries. However, by categorizing carbon rights, the paper summarizes several legal considerations that are relevant for regulating REDD+ and sharing the financial benefits of transacting ERRs.