320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (56) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (56) (remove)
Keywords
- Governance (3)
- governance (3)
- Demokratietheorie (2)
- Deutschland (2)
- European integration (2)
- Europäische Integration (2)
- Föderalismus (2)
- GIZ (2)
- Korruption (2)
- Partizipation (2)
Dass sich die repräsentative Demokratie in Deutschland im Wandel befindet, ist nicht neu und kaum umstritten. Herausforderungen im Kontext der Partizipation und Repräsentation rufen ihrerseits Probleme auf Seiten der Input-Legitimation hervor. Demgemäß ist das grundlegende demokratiepolitische Anliegen dieser Arbeit, am Beispiel der Bundes- und Berliner Landesebene darzustellen, wie der repräsentative Politikprozess partizipativer und dennoch effektiv gestaltet werden kann. Basierend auf der philosophischen Strömung des Pragmatismus verfolgt und diskutiert die Arbeit die Synthese aus der pragmatistischen Demokratiekonzeption von Archon Fung und dem empirischen Forschungsprogramm der kriterienbasierten Evaluation demokratischer Innovationen. Dabei wird das analytische Vorgehen Archon Fungs kritisch erweitert, um dem dieser Arbeit zugrunde liegenden Konzept einer komplexen Bürgergesellschaft – als normativer und praktischer Bezugspunkt – gerecht zu werden. Fungs Konzept wird demnach um die liberale Sphäre der Öffentlichkeit, mithin um die zivilgesellschaftlichen Handlungszusammenhänge ergänzt. Auf Grundlage der Diskussion von demokratischen Innovationen werden schließlich demokratie- und engagementpolitische Handlungsempfehlungen in der Dimension der Partizipation und in der Dimension der Repräsentation formuliert. Mithin verfolgt die Arbeit eine problem- und lösungsorientierte Ergänzung der repräsentativen Demokratie. Gleichwohl ist die Arbeit als eine pragmatistisch angeleitete Konzeptstudie für die Entwicklung einer beteiligungsorientierten Praxis in der repräsentativen Demokratie zu verstehen, die trotz ihres theoretischen Charakters ganz im Sinne des Pragmatismus die notwendige empirische Orientierung aufweist. Damit wird das zuweilen problematische Verhältnis zwischen Politischer Theorie und empirischer Demokratieforschung überwunden.
In the past decades, development cooperation (DC) led by conventional bi- and multilateral donors has been joined by a large number of small, private or public-private donors. This pluralism of actors raises questions as to whether or not these new donors are able to implement projects more or less effectively than their conventional counterparts. In contrast to their predecessors, the new donors have committed themselves to be more pragmatic, innovative and flexible in their development cooperation measures. However, they are also criticized for weakening the function of local civil society and have the reputation of being an intransparent and often controversial alternative to public services. With additional financial resources and their new approach to development, the new donors have been described in the literature as playing a controversial role in transforming development cooperation. This dissertation compares the effectiveness of initiatives by new and conventional donors with regard to the provision of public goods and services to the poor in the water and sanitation sector in India.
India is an emerging country but it is experiencing high poverty rates and poor water supply in predominantly rural areas. It lends itself for analyzing this research theme as it is currently being confronted by a large number of actors and approaches that aim to find solutions for these challenges .
In the theoretical framework of this dissertation, four governance configurations are derived from the interaction of varying actor types with regard to hierarchical and non-hierarchical steering of their interactions. These four governance configurations differ in decision-making responsibilities, accountability and delegation of tasks or direction of information flow. The assumption on actor relationships and steering is supplemented by possible alternative explanations in the empirical investigation, such as resource availability, the inheritance of structures and institutions from previous projects in a project context, gaining acceptance through beneficiaries (local legitimacy) as a door opener, and asymmetries of power in the project context.
Case study evidence from seven projects reveals that the actors' relationship is important for successful project delivery. Additionally, the results show that there is a systematic difference between conventional and new donors. Projects led by conventional donors were consistently more successful, due to an actor relationship that placed the responsibility in the hands of the recipient actors and benefited from the trust and reputation of a long-term cooperation. The trust and reputation of conventional donors always went along with a back-up from federal level and trickled down as reputation also at local level implementation. Furthermore, charismatic leaders, as well as the acquired structures and institutions of predecessor projects, also proved to be a positive influencing factor for successful project implementation.
Despite the mixed results of the seven case studies, central recommendations for action can be derived for the various actors involved in development cooperation. For example, new donors could fulfill a supplementary function with conventional donors by developing innovative project approaches through pilot studies and then implementing them as a supplement to the projects of conventional donors on the ground. In return, conventional donors would have to make room the new donors by integrating their approaches into already programs in order to promote donor harmonization. It is also important to identify and occupy niches for activities and to promote harmonization among donors on state and federal sides.
The empirical results demonstrate the need for a harmonization strategy of different donor types in order to prevent duplication, over-experimentation and the failure of development programs. A transformation to successful and sustainable development cooperation can only be achieved through more coordination processes and national self-responsibility.
The thesis focuses on the inter-departmental coordination of adaptation and mitigation of demographic change in East Germany. All Eastern German States (Länder) have set up inter-departmental committees (IDCs) that are expected to deliver joint strategies to tackle demographic change. IDCs provide an organizational setting for potential positive coordination, i.e. a joint approach to problem solving that pools and utilizes the expertise of many departments in a constructive manner from the very beginning. Whether they actually achieve positive coordination is contested within the academic debate. This motivates the first research question of this thesis: Do IDCs achieve positive coordination?
Interdepartmental committees and their role in horizontal coordination within the core executive triggered interest among scholars already more than fifty years ago. However, we don’t know much about their actual importance for the inter-departmental preparation of cross-cutting policies. Until now, few studies can be found that analyzes inter-departmental committees in a comparative way trying to identify whether they achieve positive coordination and what factors shape the coordination process and output of IDCs.
Each IDC has a chair organization that is responsible for managing the interactions within the IDCs. The chair organization is important, because it organizes and structures the overall process of coordination in the IDC. Consequently, the chair of an IDC serves as the main boundary-spanner and therefore has remarkable influence by arranging meetings and the work schedule or by distributing internal roles. Interestingly, in the German context we find two organizational approaches: while some states decided to put a line department (e.g. Department of Infrastructure) in charge of managing the IDC, others rely on the State Chancelleries, i.e. the center of government.
This situation allows for comparative research design that can address the role of the State Chancellery in inter-departmental coordination of cross-cutting policies. This is relevant, because the role of the center is crucial when studying coordination within central government. The academic debate on the center of government in the German politico-administrative system is essentially divided into two camps. One camp claims that the center can improve horizontal coordination and steer cross-cutting policy-making more effectively, while the other camp points to limits to central coordination due to departmental autonomy. This debate motivates the second research question of this thesis: Does the State Chancellery as chair organization achieve positive coordination in IDCs?
The center of government and its role in the German politic-administrative system has attracted academic attention already in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a research desiderate regarding the center’s role during the inter-departmental coordination process. There are only few studies that explicitly analyze centers of government and their role in coordination of cross-cutting policies, although some single case studies have been published. This gap in the academic debate will be addressed by the answer to the second research question.
The dependent variable of this study is the chair organization of IDCs. The value of this variable is dichotomous: either an IDC is chaired by a Line department or by a State Chancellery. We are interested whether this variable has an effect on two dependent variables. First, we will analyze the coordination process, i.e. interaction among bureaucrats within the IDC. Second, the focus of this thesis will be on the coordination result, i.e. the demography strategies that are produced by the respective IDCs.
In terms of the methodological approach, this thesis applies a comparative case study design based on a most-similar-systems logic. The German Federalism is quite suitable for such designs. Since the institutional framework largely is the same across all states, individual variables and their effect can be isolated and plausibly analyzed. To further control for potential intervening variables, we will limit our case selection to states located in East Germany, because the demographic situation is most problematic in the Eastern part of Germany, i.e. there is a equal problem pressure. Consequently, we will analyze five cases: Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt (line department) and Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony (State Chancellery).
There is no grand coordination theory that is ready to be applied to our case studies. Therefore, we need to tailor our own approach. Our assumption is that the individual chair organization has an effect on the coordination process and output of IDCs, although all cases are embedded in the same institutional setting, i.e. the German politico-administrative system. Therefore, we need an analytical approach than incorporates institutionalist and agency-based arguments. Therefore, this thesis will utilize Actor-Centered Institutionalism (ACI). Broadly speaking, ACI conceptualizes actors’ behavior as influenced - but not fully determined - by institutions. Since ACI is rather abstract we need to adapt it for the purpose of this thesis. Line Departments and State Chancelleries will be modeled as distinct actors with different action orientations and capabilities to steer the coordination process. However, their action is embedded within the institutional context of governments, which we will conceptualize as being comprised of regulative (formal rules) and normative (social norms) elements.
Translating innovation
(2017)
This doctoral thesis studies the process of innovation adoption in public administrations, addressing the research question of how an innovation is translated to a local context. The study empirically explores Design Thinking as a new problem-solving approach introduced by a federal government organisation in Singapore. With a focus on user-centeredness, collaboration and iteration Design Thinking seems to offer a new way to engage recipients and other stakeholders of public services as well as to re-think the policy design process from a user’s point of view. Pioneered in the private sector, early adopters of the methodology include civil services in Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as Singapore. Hitherto, there is not much evidence on how and for which purposes Design Thinking is used in the public sector.
For the purpose of this study, innovation adoption is framed in an institutionalist perspective addressing how concepts are translated to local contexts. The study rejects simplistic views of the innovation adoption process, in which an idea diffuses to another setting without adaptation. The translation perspective is fruitful because it captures the multidimensionality and ‘messiness’ of innovation adoption. More specifically, the overall research question addressed in this study is: How has Design Thinking been translated to the local context of the public sector organisation under investigation? And from a theoretical point of view: What can we learn from translation theory about innovation adoption processes?
Moreover, there are only few empirical studies of organisations adopting Design Thinking and most of them focus on private organisations. We know very little about how Design Thinking is embedded in public sector organisations. This study therefore provides further empirical evidence of how Design Thinking is used in a public sector organisation, especially with regards to its application to policy work which has so far been under-researched.
An exploratory single case study approach was chosen to provide an in-depth analysis of the innovation adoption process. Based on a purposive, theory-driven sampling approach, a Singaporean Ministry was selected because it represented an organisational setting in which Design Thinking had been embedded for several years, making it a relevant case with regard to the research question. Following a qualitative research design, 28 semi-structured interviews (45-100 minutes) with employees and managers were conducted. The interview data was triangulated with observations and documents, collected during a field research research stay in Singapore.
The empirical study of innovation adoption in a single organisation focused on the intra-organisational perspective, with the aim to capture the variations of translation that occur during the adoption process. In so doing, this study opened the black box often assumed in implementation studies. Second, this research advances translation studies not only by showing variance, but also by deriving explanatory factors. The main differences in the translation of Design Thinking occurred between service delivery and policy divisions, as well as between the first adopter and the rest of the organisation. For the intra-organisational translation of Design Thinking in the Singaporean Ministry the following five factors played a role: task type, mode of adoption, type of expertise, sequence of adoption, and the adoption of similar practices.
Das Buch bietet eine systematische Erklärung der bisher wenig beachteten Phänomene von Wandel und Stabilität legislativer Vetopunkte (VP) in parlamentarischen Demokratien.
Theoretisch ermöglichen die gemeinsame Betrachtung der Akteursstrategien auf Gesetzgebungs- und Reformebene und deren gegenseitige Beeinflussung die Identifikation institutioneller Gleichgewichte. Die Erklärung der Autorin betont die Bedeutung der Mehrheiten beschränkenden Wirkung von Vetoinstitutionen für die Reformpräferenzen der Akteure. Im Reformprozess wird die Legitimität der Vetopunkte als wesentlicher Faktor angenommen. Sie beeinflusst Kosten und Nutzen der Akteure durch eine potenzielle elektorale Bestrafung von Versuchen, legitime Vetopunkte zu schwächen bzw. illegitime Vetopunkte zu bewahren.
Empirisch wird die Erklärung mittels einer QCA–Analyse für 38 etablierte parlamentarische Demokratien sowie anhand vertiefender Fallstudien zur Entwicklung der Vetoinstitutionen in fünf Ländern überprüft.
Die Empirie des beginnenden 21. Jahrhunderts weist mehr autoritäre Regime aus als am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts angenommen. Die gegenwärtige Autoritarismusforschung versucht die Fortdauer dieses Regimetyps in Hinblick auf die politischen Institutionen zu erklären – dabei bleiben politische Akteure, die nicht zum Herrschaftszentrum gehören, außen vor.
Das vorliegende Projekt untersucht die Rolle und Funktion politischer Opposition in autoritären Regimen. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass sich an der Opposition eine signifikante Charakteristik autoritärer Regime manifestiert. Das akteurszentrierte Projekt ist der qualitativ orientierten Politikwissenschaft zuzurechnen und verknüpft das Autoritarismuskonzept von Juan Linz mit klassischen Ansätzen der Oppositionsforschung und macht diese Theorien für die gegenwärtige Autoritarismusforschung nutzbar.
Die eigens entwickelte elitenorientierte Oppositionstypologie wird am Beispiel Kenias im Zeitraum 1990-2005 angewendet. Die Oppositionsgruppen werden im Institutionengefüge autoritärer Regime verortet und ihr politisches Agieren in den Dimensionen Handlungsstatus, Handlungsüberzeugung und Handlungsstrategie analysiert. Unter Beachtung der historisch gewachsenen regionalen und kulturellen Spezifika wird angenommen, dass generelle, Regionen übergreifende Aussagen zur Opposition in autoritären Regimen getroffen werden können: Kein Oppositionstyp kann allein einen Herrschaftswechsel bewirken. Der Wechsel bzw. die Fortdauer der Herrschaft hängt von der Dominanz bestimmter Oppositionstypen im Oppositionsgeflecht sowie der gleichzeitigen Schwäche anderer Oppositionstypen ab.
Durch die konzeptionelle Beschäftigung mit Opposition sowie deren empirische Erschließung soll ein substantieller Beitrag für die notwendige Debatte um autoritäre Regime im 21. Jahrhundert geleistet werden.
In the debate on how to govern sustainable development, a central question concerns the interaction between knowledge about sustainability and policy developments. The discourse on what constitutes sustainable development conflict on some of the most basic issues, including the proper definitions, instruments and indicators of what should be ‘developed’ or ‘sustained’. Whereas earlier research on the role of (scientific) knowledge in policy adopted a rationalist-positivist view of knowledge as the basis for ‘evidence-based policy making’, recent literature on knowledge creation and transfer processes has instead pointed towards aspects of knowledge-policy ‘co-production’ (Jasanoff 2004). It is highlighted that knowledge utilisation is not just a matter of the quality of the knowledge as such, but a question of which knowledge fits with the institutional context and dominant power structures. Just as knowledge supports and justifies certain policy, policy can produce and stabilise certain knowledge. Moreover, rather than viewing knowledge-policy interaction as a linear and uni-directional model, this conceptualization is based on an assumption of the policy process as being more anarchic and unpredictable, something Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) has famously termed the ‘garbage-can model’.
The present dissertation focuses on the interplay between knowledge and policy in sustainability governance. It takes stock with the practice of ‘Management by Objectives and Results’ (MBOR: Lundqvist 2004) whereby policy actors define sustainable development goals (based on certain knowledge) and are expected to let these definitions guide policy developments as well as evaluate whether sustainability improves or not. As such a knowledge-policy instrument, Sustainability Indicators (SI:s) help both (subjectively) construct ‘social meaning’ about sustainability and (objectively) influence policy and measure its success. The different articles in this cumulative dissertation analyse the development, implementation and policy support (personal and institutional) of Sustainability Indicators as an instrument for MBOR in a variety of settings. More specifically, the articles centre on the question of how sustainability definitions and measurement tools on the one hand (knowledge) and policy instruments and political power structures on the other, are co-produced.
A first article examines the normative foundations of popular international SI:s and country rankings. Combining theoretical (constructivist) analysis with factor analysis, it analyses how the input variable structure of SI:s are related to different sustainability paradigms, producing a different output in terms of which countries (developed versus developing) are most highly ranked. Such a theoretical input-output analysis points towards a potential problem of SI:s becoming a sort of ‘circular argumentation constructs’. The article thus, highlights on a quantitative basis what others have noted qualitatively – that different definitions and interpretations of sustainability influence indicator output to the point of contradiction. The normative aspects of SI:s does thereby not merely concern the question of which indicators to use for what purposes, but also the more fundamental question of how normative and political bias are intrinsically a part of the measurement instrument as such. The study argues that, although no indicator can be expected to tell the sustainability ‘truth-out-there’, a theoretical localization of indicators – and of the input variable structure – may help facilitate interpretation of SI output and the choice of which indicators to use for what (policy or academic) purpose.
A second article examines the co-production of knowledge and policy in German sustainability governance. It focuses on the German sustainability strategy ‘Perspektiven für Deutschland’ (2002), a strategy that stands out both in an international comparison of national sustainability strategies as well as among German government policy strategies because of its relative stability over five consecutive government constellations, its rather high status and increasingly coercive nature. The study analyses what impact the sustainability strategy has had on the policy process between 2002 and 2015, in terms of defining problems and shaping policy processes. Contrasting rationalist and constructivist perspectives on the role of knowledge in policy, two factors, namely the level of (scientific and political) consensus about policy goals and the ‘contextual fit’ of problem definitions, are found to be main factors explaining how different aspects of the strategy is used. Moreover, the study argues that SI:s are part of a continuous process of ‘structuring’ in which indicator, user and context factors together help structure the sustainability challenge in such a way that it becomes more manageable for government policy.
A third article examines how 31 European countries have built supportive institutions of MBOR between 1992 and 2012. In particular during the 1990s and early 2000s much hope was put into the institutionalisation of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) as a way to overcome sectoral thinking in sustainability policy making and integrate issues of environmental sustainability into all government policy. However, despite high political backing (FN, EU, OECD), implementation of EPI seems to differ widely among countries. The study is a quantitative longitudinal cross-country comparison of how countries’ ‘EPI architectures’ have developed over time. Moreover, it asks which ‘EPI architectures’ seem to be more effective in producing more ‘stringent’ sustainability policy.
Seit Jahren steigen Politikverdrossenheit und die Zahl der Menschen an, die sich von der Gesellschaft exkludiert fühlen. Können Basisaktivierung durch Quartiersmanagement und Community Organizing diesen Trends entgegenwirken? Fördert die Ermöglichung der gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe von benachteiligten Bevölkerungsgruppen die Sozialkapitalbildung im Sinne Putnams? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, wurden die vorhandene Literatur analysiert und zahlreiche Experteninterviews geführt.