Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (49) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2017 (49) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (19)
- Doctoral Thesis (11)
- Part of a Book (9)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (6)
- Other (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (49)
Keywords
- Trumponomics (2)
- Aid conditionalities (1)
- Aid diplomacy (1)
- Aid-for-trade (1)
- Beijing consensus (1)
- Bundeswehr (1)
- Character (1)
- Cities and regions (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Climate governance experiments (1)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (49) (remove)
Agricultural landscapes safeguard ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity upon which human well-being depends. However, only a fraction of these services are generally considered in land management decisions, resulting in trade-offs and societally inefficient solutions. The TEEB Study (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) spearheaded the development of assessments of the economic significance of ES and biodiversity. Several national TEEB follow-ups have compiled case studies and derived targeted policy advice. By synthesizing insights from "Natural Capital Germany - TEEB DE" and focusing on rural areas, the objectives of this study were (i) to explore causes of the continued decline of ES and biodiversity, (ii) to introduce case studies exemplifying the economic significance of ES and biodiversity in land use decisions, and (iii) to synthesize key recommendations for policy, planning and management. Our findings indicate that the continued decrease of ES and biodiversity in Germany can be explained by implementation deficits within a well-established nature conservation system. Three case studies on grassland protection, the establishment of riverbank buffer zones and water-sensitive farming illustrate that an economic perspective can convey recognition of the values of ES and biodiversity. We conclude with suggestions for enhanced consideration, improved conservation and sustainable use of ES and biodiversity. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Moving Forces
(2017)
Throughout a large part of the twentieth century, the body was interpreted as a field of signs, the meaning of which pointed to an unconscious dimension. At the height of the popularity of structuralism, Jacques Lacan deemed the unconscious to be “structured like a language.” Starting in the early 1990s, however, a deep shift occurred in the way the body was interpreted. A new movement cast tremendous doubt on the hegemony of language and instead advocated a performative, pictorial, and affective approach — the so-called material turn — which encompassed all of these. In the words of Karen Barad, this turn inquired as to why meaning, history, and truth are assigned to language only, whereas the movements of materiality are given less prominence: “How did language come to be more trustworthy than matter? Why are language and culture granted their own agency and historicity while matter is figured as passive and immutable?” With this shift toward the material, bodies began to be seen in a different light and their materiality understood as something that follows its own laws and movements, which cannot be understood exclusively in terms of social-cultural codes. Instead, these laws and movements call into question the very dichotomies of nature/culture and body/spirit.
Ecology of Affect
(2017)
The way we conceive the human today is particularly affected by the shifts in media technology during the 20th century. Affect emerges as the new liminal concept that renders the body compatible in novel ways with the technology and politics of media. By ways of a relational reorganization the organic end technological life is condensed in a new, intense way to an ecology of affects.
In a recent article in this journal, Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl (2016) suggest a definition of organization as a ‘decided social order’ composed of five elements (membership, rules, hierarchies, monitoring, and sanctions) which rest on decisions. ‘Partial organization’ uses only one or a few of these decidable elements while ‘complete organization’ uses them all. Such decided orders may also occur outside formal organizations, as the authors observe. Although we appreciate the idea of improving our understanding of organization(s) in modern society, we believe that Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl's suggestion jeopardizes the concept of organization by blurring its specific meaning. As the authors already draw on the work of Niklas Luhmann, we propose taking this exploration a step further and the potential of systems theory more seriously. Organizational analysis would then be able to retain a distinctive notion of formal organization on the one hand while benefiting from an encompassing theory of modern society on the other. With this extended conceptual framework, we would expect to gain a deeper understanding of how organizations implement and shape different societal realms as well as mediate between their particular logics, and, not least, how they are related to non-organizational social forms (e.g. families).
Despite the proliferation and promise of subnational climate initiatives, the institutional architecture of transnational municipal networks (TMNs) is not well understood. With a view to close this research gap, the article empirically assesses the assumption that TMNs are a viable substitute for ambitious international action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It addresses the aggregate phenomenon in terms of geographical distribution, central players, mitigation ambition and monitoring provisions. Examining thirteen networks, it finds that membership in TMNs is skewed toward Europe and North America while countries from the Global South are underrepresented; that only a minority of networks commit to quantified emission reductions and that these are not more ambitious than Parties to the UNFCCC; and finally that the monitoring provisions are fairly limited. In sum, the article shows that transnational municipal networks are not (yet) the representative, ambitious and transparent player they are thought to be.
This article explores the various futures of relations between the European Union (EU) and Ukraine. After distilling two major drivers we construct a future compass in order to conceive of four futures of relations between the EU and Ukraine. Our scenarios aim to challenge deep-rooted assumptions on the EU’s neighbourhood with Ukraine: How will the politico-economic challenges in the European countries influence the EU’s approach towards the East? Will more EU engagement in Ukraine contribute to enduring peace? Does peace always come with stability? Which prospects does the idea of Intermarium have? Are the pivotal transformation players in Ukraine indeed oligarchs or rather small- and medium-sized entrepreneurs? After presenting our scenarios, we propose indicators to know in the years to come, along which path future relations do develop. By unearthing surprising developments we hope to provoke innovative thoughts on Eastern Europe in times of post truth societies, confrontation between states and hybrid warfare.
Bisherige Studien zur Demokratieförderung analysierten „erfolgreiche“ Beispiele. Das ist teilweise eine Reflektion der politischen Ökonomie von Demokratieförderung, in der sie Beispielen im Inland erzeugter demokratischer Durchbrüche folgt. Dennoch kann eine wissenschaftliche Analyse externer Einflüsse auf interne Veränderungen sich nicht nur auf Fälle erfolgreicher Demokratieentwicklung beziehen, sondern muss Beispiele von Regimeveränderungen, die nicht in einer Demokratie resultierten, berücksichtigen, um Selektionsvorurteile zu vermeiden und die kausalen Mechanismen zu isolieren, die für einen demokratischen Wandel notwendig sind, neben dem Zusammenbruch eines autoritären Regimes und einer Liberalisierung.
In dieser Studie dienen Marokko und Tunesien als Fallbeispiele, Länder, die nach langjähriger Diktaturerfahrung versuchen demokratische Strukturen aufzubauen und sich anderen Herausforderungen stellen müssen als sich demokratisierende Regime, die über einen relativ effektiven Staat verfügen.
Da es wenig Austausch zwischen Analysten von demokratischen Übergängen, Konsolidierung und Post-Konflikt Staatenbildung gab, überrascht, dass diese radikal unterschiedliche Situation von demokratischem Wandel und variierenden Rollen externer Akteure in jeder Kategorie bisher nicht differenziert wurde. Die Studie widmet sich den hieraus resultierenden Kernfragen: „Wie, Warum und durch Was wird Demokratieförderung durch externe Akteure funktionieren?“
Die Frage nach dem „Wie“ ist hier die schwierigste, es ist eine Frage nach den Methoden und Strategien des Demokratisierungsprozesses sowie der Unterstützung, die sorgfältig durchdachte Techniken und ihre breite Akzeptanz durch eine Vielzahl von Partner erfordert. Antwort auf die Frage nach dem „Was“ und „Warum“ hingegen findet sich in der Grundlage schlechter Regierungsarbeit und schlechter Wirtschaftsleistung, die zu Aufständen der Bevölkerung führen. Die Resultate der Studie tragen zum Fortschritt in der Demokratieförderung bei.