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 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.
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?
Die tagespolitische Auseinandersetzung stellt sich als eine Für- und Gegenrede zu politischen Problemen, Herausforderungen oder Handlungsinitiativen dar: Verschiedene Akteure äußern sich kritisch oder befürwortend zu vollzogenen oder geplanten politischen Maßnahmen wie auch – ebenso kritisch oder befürwortend – zu getätigten Äußerungen anderer politischer und medialer Akteure. Insgesamt werden dabei eine Vielzahl von Argumenten mit unterschiedlicher Reichweite und Intensität ausgetauscht, aufgegriffen und verworfen. Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass solche sprachlich verfassten Auseinandersetzungen Legitimationsdiskurse sind, in denen Legitimität anhand normativer Werte verhandelt wird. Dort genutzte Wertkategorien bleiben jedoch deutungsoffen und oft implizit. Um politisches Lernen zu fördern, erweist sich eine gemeinsame Bearbeitung solcher Legitimationsdiskurse als gewinnbringend. Zentral dafür ist, dass Legitimationsargumente in Lehr-Lernarrangements explizit und verhandelbar werden.
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.
Who makes the world?
(2020)
In this essay, we consider the role of academics as change-makers. There is a long line of reflection about academics' sociopolitical role(s) in international relations (IR). Yet, our attempt differs from available considerations in two regards. First, we emphasize that academics are not a homogenous group. While some keep their distance from policymakers, others frequently provide policy advice. Hence, positions and possibilities of influence differ. Second, our argument is not oriented towards the past but the future. That is, we develop our reflections on academics as change-makers by outlining the vision of a 'FutureLab', an innovative, future forum that brings together different world-makers who are united in their attempt to improve 'the world'. Our vision accounts for current, perhaps alarming trends in academia, such as debates about the (in)ability to confront post-truth politics. Still, it is a (critically) optimistic one and can be read as an invitation for experimentation. Finally, we sympathize with voices demanding the democratization of academia and find that further cross-disciplinary dialogues within academia and dialogues between different academics, civil society activists and policymakers may help in finding creditable solutions to problems such as climate change and populism.
Urteilskompetenz
(2020)
Urban neo-liberalisation
(2020)
The contributions to Urban neo- liberalisation bring together critical analyses of the dynamics and processes neo- liberalism has facilitated in urban contexts. Recent developments, such as intensified economic investment and exposure to aggressive strategies of banks, hedge- funds and investors, and long- term processes of market- and state- led urban restructuration, have produced uneven urban geographies and new forms of exclusion and marginality. These strategies have no less transformed the governance of cities by subordinating urban social life to rationalities and practices of competition within and between cities, and they also heavily impact on city inhabitants’ experience of everyday life. Against the backdrop of recent austerity politics and a marketisation of cities, this volume discusses processes of urban neo- liberalisation with regard to democracy and citizenship, inclusion and exclusion, opportunities, and life- chances. It addresses pressing issues of commodification of housing and home, activation of civil society, vulnerability, and the right to the city.
The chapter illustrates how cities can be understood from a system–theory perspective as complex social systems. It argues that the classical and linear intervention methods are often no (longer) suitable for the complex structure, temporal dynamics and multifaceted processuality of urban development. It offers a systemic and systems theory-inspired method as an alternative approach, which allows for extended possibilities that are more appropriate for dealing with urban development processes. The method was developed on the basis of practical experience and theoretical insights. The approach should demonstrate for local decision-makers potential areas of activity for organising urban changes through co-design.
In recent years the framings of global health security have shifted while the structures governing global health have largely remained the same. One feature of the emerging re-ordering is the unresolved allocation of accountability between state and non-state actors. This brings to critical challenges to global health security to the fore. The first is that the consensus on the seeming shift from state to human security framing with regard to the global human right to health (security) risks losing its salience. Second, this conceptual challenge is mirrored on the operational level: if states and non-state actors do not assume responsibility for health security, who or what can guarantee health security? In order to address global health security against the backdrop of these twenty-first Century challenges, this article proceeds in three parts. First, it analyses the shortcomings of the current state-based World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health security. Second, taking into account the rising pressures posed to global health security and the inadequacy both of state-based and of ad hoc non-state responses, it proposes a new framing. Third, the article offers initial insights into the operational application of beyond state responses to (health) security challenges.
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.