Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (1029) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1029) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (1029)
Keywords
- Germany (7)
- international organizations (6)
- European Union (5)
- accountability (4)
- bicameralism (4)
- climate policy (4)
- parliamentary government (4)
- political equality (4)
- visions of democracy (4)
- COVID-19 (3)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (1029) (remove)
Migration and democracy
(2021)
In the last few years, we have been increasingly experiencing a discursive and practical use of the existing democratic structures as an instrument of anti-immigration anxiety and sentiment, from electoral support to right-wing populist parties to anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and/or racist mobilizations in and beyond the Western world. This article argues that the origins and political histories that the concepts of demos and democracy stand on provide a firm ground to resist the attempts at their current nativist/nationalist closure. Contesting the attempts to reduce the concepts of democracy and demos to strictly limited or ethnically defined populations, the article develops a political argument that relates democracy and migration, which have been represented as opposite poles within the current political map defined by the populist surge.
Clubs of autocrats
(2021)
While scholars have argued that membership in Regional Organizations (ROs) can increase the likelihood of democratization, we see many autocratic regimes surviving in power albeit being members of several ROs. This article argues that this is the case because these regimes are often members in "Clubs of Autocrats" that supply material and ideational resources to strengthen domestic survival politics and shield members from external interference during moments of political turmoil. The argument is supported by survival analysis testing the effect of membership in autocratic ROs on regime survival between 1946 to 2010. It finds that membership in ROs composed of more autocratic member states does in fact raise the likelihood of regime survival by protecting incumbents against democratic challenges such as civil unrest or political dissent. However, autocratic RO membership does not help to prevent regime breakdown due to autocratic challenges like military coups, potentially because these types of threats are less likely to diffuse to other member states. The article thereby adds to our understanding of the limits of democratization and potential reverse effects of international cooperation, and contributes to the literature addressing interdependences of international and domestic politics in autocratic regimes.
International organizations (IOs) experience significant variation in their decision-making performance, or the extent to which they produce policy output. While some IOs are efficient decision-making machineries, others are plagued by deadlock. How can such variation be explained? Examining this question, the article makes three central contributions. First, we approach performance by looking at IO decision-making in terms of policy output and introduce an original measure of decision-making performance that captures annual growth rates in IO output. Second, we offer a novel theoretical explanation for decision-making performance. This account highlights the role of institutional design, pointing to how majoritarian decision rules, delegation of authority to supranational institutions, and access for transnational actors (TNAs) interact to affect decision-making. Third, we offer the first comparative assessment of the decision-making performance of IOs. While previous literature addresses single IOs, we explore decision-making across a broad spectrum of 30 IOs from 1980 to 2011. Our analysis indicates that IO decision-making performance varies across and within IOs. We find broad support for our theoretical account, showing the combined effect of institutional design features in shaping decision-making performance. Notably, TNA access has a positive effect on decision-making performance when pooling is greater, and delegation has a positive effect when TNA access is higher. We also find that pooling has an independent, positive effect on decision-making performance. All-in-all, these findings suggest that the institutional design of IOs matters for their decision-making performance, primarily in more complex ways than expected in earlier research.
There is a growing recognition that international organizations (IOs) formulate and adopt policy in a wide range of areas. IOs have emerged as key venues for states seeking joint solutions to contemporary challenges such as climate change or COVID-19, and to establish frameworks to bolster trade, development, security, and more. In this capacity, IOs produce both extraordinary and routine policy output with a multitude of purposes, ranging from policies of historic significance like admitting new members to the more mundane tasks of administering IO staff. This article introduces the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset (IPOD), which covers close to 37,000 individual policy acts of 13 multi-issue IOs in the 1980–2015 period. The dataset fills a gap in the growing body of literature on the comparative study of IOs, providing researchers with a fine-grained perspective on the structure of IO policy output and data for comparisons across time, policy areas, and organizations. This article describes the construction and coverage of the dataset and identifies key temporal and cross-sectional patterns revealed by the data. In a concise illustration of the dataset’s utility, we apply models of punctuated equilibria in a comparative study of the relationship between institutional features and broad policy agenda dynamics. Overall, the Intergovernmental Policy Output Dataset offers a unique resource for researchers to analyze IO policy output in a granular manner and to explore questions of responsiveness, performance, and legitimacy of IOs.
When are international organizations (IOs) responsive to the policy problems that motivated their establishment? While it is a conventional assumption that IOs exist to address transnational challenges, the question of whether and when IO policy-making is responsive to shifts in underlying problems has not been systematically explored. This study investigates the responsiveness of IOs from a large-n, comparative approach. Theoretically, we develop three alternative models of IO responsiveness, emphasizing severeness, dependence, and power differentials. Empirically, we focus on the domain of security, examining the responsiveness of eight multi-issue IOs to armed conflict between 1980 and 2015, using a novel and expansive dataset on IO policy decisions. Our findings suggest, first, that IOs are responsive to security problems and, second, that responsiveness is not primarily driven by dependence or power differentials but by problem severity. An in-depth study of the responsiveness of the UN Security Council using more granular data confirms these findings. As the first comparative study of whether and when IO policy adapts to problem severity, the article has implications for debates about IO responsiveness, performance, and legitimacy.
The limitations and possibilities of the state in solving societal problems are perennial issues in the political and policy sciences and increasingly so in studies of environmental politics. With the aim of better understanding the role of the state in addressing environmental degradation through policy making, this article investigates the nexus between the environmental policy outputs and the environmental performance. Drawing on three theoretical perspectives on the state and market nexus in the environmental dilemma, we identify five distinct pathways. We then examine the extent to which these pathways are manifested in the real world. Our empirical investigation covers up to 37 countries for the period 1970–2010. While we see no global pattern of linkages between policy outputs and performance, our exploratory analysis finds evidence of policy effects, which suggest that the state can, under certain circumstances, improve the environment through policy making.
The planetary commons
(2024)
The Anthropocene signifies the start of a no- analogue trajectory of the Earth system that is fundamentally different from the Holocene. This new trajectory is characterized by rising risks of triggering irreversible and unmanageable shifts in Earth system functioning. We urgently need a new global approach to safeguard critical Earth system regulating functions more effectively and comprehensively. The global commons framework is the closest example of an existing approach with the aim of governing biophysical systems on Earth upon which the world collectively depends. Derived during stable Holocene conditions, the global commons framework must now evolve in the light of new Anthropocene dynamics. This requires a fundamental shift from a focus only on governing shared resources beyond national jurisdiction, to one that secures critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. We propose a new framework—the planetary commons—which differs from the global commons framework by including not only globally shared geographic regions but also critical biophysical systems that regulate the resilience and state, and therefore livability, on Earth. The new planetary commons should articulate and create comprehensive stewardship obligations through Earth system governance aimed at restoring and strengthening planetary resilience and justice.
Obwohl seit der Finanzkrise 2008 systemische Finanzrisiken das Objekt zahlreicher wissenschaftlicher Studien waren, hat die Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen und Umständen die Auferlegung eines systemischen Finanzrisikos moralisch unzulässig ist, bisher kaum Beachtung gefunden. Ziel dieses Aufsatzes ist es, eine Reihe von normativen Kriterien für die Einschätzung der moralischen Unzulässigkeit von systemischen Risiken zu entwickeln. Darüber hinaus wird argumentiert, dass staatliche und andere relevante Institutionen zwei zentrale Pflichten hinsichtlich des Umgangs mit systemischen Finanzrisiken haben: eine Schutzpflicht gegenüber allen Bürger*innen und eine Sorgfaltspflicht, um die diesen Institutionen obliegenden Kontroll- und Aufsichtsfunktionen verantwortungsvoll auszuüben.
Serene Khader ist eine der wenigen feministischen Philosoph:innen in der anglosächsischen Philosophie, die sich gezielt mit globaler Ungerechtigkeit und Imperialismus aus Sicht jener Frauen beschäftigen, die von kolonialer und kultureller Herrschaft betroffen sind. Hierbei entlarvt sie eindrucksvoll die oftmals westliche Prägung von Feminismus, Gleichstellungspolitik und Philosophie und verfolgt so das Ziel, die Autonomie und Entscheidungskraft aller Frauen anzuerkennen. So zielt Khader in Decolonizing Universalism: A Transnational Feminist Ethic auf eine Neuausrichtung der feministischen Perspektive, welche es schafft, dekolonial und anti-imperialistisch zu sein, ohne gleichzeitig dem Universalismus komplett abzuschwören. Die folgende Buchdiskussion begibt sich in eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Khaders interessanter wie wichtiger Theorie. Einleitend werden wir einen Überblick über Khaders Grundgedanken geben. Es schließen sich kritische Kommentare von Tamara Jugov, Mirjam Müller, Kerstin Reibold sowie Hilkje C. Hänel und Fabian Schuppert an, auf die Serene Khader abschließend antwortet.
In der Ausgabe Politisches Lernen 1-2|2019 setzte sich Kurt P. Tudyka mit dem Verhältnis von Theater und Politik auseinander. Er gelangte zu dem ernüchternden Resümee: „Der Anspruch, Theater sei die Schule der Nation, – soweit er überhaupt noch besteht –, müsste aufgegeben werden.“ (S. 32) In Tudykas Einführung hieß es bereits: „Eine politisierende Wirkung auf das Publikum wird bestritten.“ (S. 30) Vor diesem Hintergrund könnte bei Lehrerinnen und Lehrern der Politischen Bildung der Eindruck entstehen, ein Besuch im Theater mit Schülerinnen und Schülern sei didaktisch nicht sinnvoll. Dagegen wird im folgenden Beitrag die Auffassung vertreten, dass ein Theaterbesuch mit den Lernenden durchaus mit Erkenntnisgewinnen, seien sie politisch oder über das Politische hinausweisend, verbunden sein kann. Der Beitrag stellt eine gekürzte Fassung des Textes „Theater und politische Bildung“ dar, der in Markus Gloe / Tonio Oeftering (Hrsg.): Politische Bildung meets Kulturelle Bildung, Baden-Baden (Nomos) 2020, erscheinen wird.
Voting for Votes
(2022)
Scholars frequently expect parties to act strategically in parliament, hoping to affect their electoral fortunes. Voters assumingly assess parties by their activity and vote accordingly. However, the retrospective voting literature looks mostly at the government's outcomes, leaving the opposition understudied. We argue that, for opposition parties, legislative voting constitutes an effective vote-seeking activity as a signaling tool of their attitude toward the government. We suggest that conflictual voting behavior affects voters through two mechanisms: as a signal of opposition valence and as means of ideological differentiation from the government. We present both aggregate- and individual-level analyses, leveraging a dataset of 169 party observations from 10 democracies and linking it to the CSES survey data of 27,371 respondents. The findings provide support for the existence of both mechanisms. Parliamentary conflict on legislative votes has a general positive effect on opposition parties' electoral performance, conditional on systemic and party-specific factors.
Eigentlich leben wir heute im Holozän, dem Erdzeitalter, das mit dem Ende der letzten großen Eiszeit vor etwa 12.000 Jahren seinen Ausgang nahm. Doch seit geraumer Zeit ist in Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit die Rede vom Anthropozän als der vom Menschen bestimmten gegenwärtigen Epoche. Mit der Begriffsschöpfung soll der gravierende Einfluss des Menschen auf die Umwelt zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, der sich nicht zuletzt in der Versauerung der Meere, im Artensterben und Klimawandel äußert. Doch wie spiegelt sich diese Erkenntnis in der Politischen Bildung wider?
Zur Jahreswende 1959/60 sorgten Hakenkreuzschmierereien an jüdischen Einrichtungen in Köln und anderswo für Entsetzen und Empörung. Diese Vorkommnisse machten bewusst, was im Verlauf der 1960er Jahre zu einem Politikum für die jüngere Generation werden sollte: Die mangelnde Aufarbeitung der nationalsozialistischen Vergangenheit. Diese Thematik sowie der von den USA in Vietnam geführte Krieg stellten mobilisierende Faktoren für die Herausbildung einer außerparlamentarischen Opposition (APO) in der Bundesrepublik dar, die sich in der zweiten Hälfte der 1960er Jahre verbreitert. Prof. Ingo Juchler beschreibt den Weg der Politischen Bildung durch die 60er Jahre und die Entwicklung hin zur sog. „didaktischen Wende“.
Mit narrativen Medien lernen
(2022)
Aporien des Rechts
(2021)
Reply and Counter-Reply
(2023)
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.
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.
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.
In this article, we examine the effects of political change on name changes of units within central government ministries. We expect that changes regarding the policy position of a government will cause changes in the names of ministerial units. To this end we formulate hypotheses combining the politics of structural choice and theories of portfolio allocation to examine the effects of political changes at the cabinet level on the names of intra-ministerial units. We constructed a dataset containing more than 17,000 observations on name changes of ministerial units between 1980 and 2013 from the central governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and France. We regress a series of generalized estimating equations (GEE) with population averaging models for binary outcomes. Finding variations across the three political-bureaucratic systems, we overall report positive effects of governmental change and ideological positions on name changes within ministries.