320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Monograph/Edited Volume (10)
- Article (6)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Master's Thesis (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (24) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (24) (remove)
Institute
- WeltTrends e.V. Potsdam (9)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (6)
- Deutsches MEGA-Konsortialbüro an der Universität Potsdam (2)
- Sozialwissenschaften (2)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (1)
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (1)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (1)
Germany’s relatively stable party system faces a new left-authoritarian challenger: Sahra Wagenknecht’s Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) party. First polls indicate that for the BSW, election results above 10% are within reach. While Wagenknecht’s positions in economic and cultural terms have already been discussed, this article elaborates on another highly relevant feature of Wagenknecht, namely her populist communication. Exploring Wagenknecht’s and BSW’s populist appeal helps us to understand why the party is said to also have potential among seemingly different voter groups coming from the far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and far left Die Linke, which share high levels of populist attitudes. To analyse the role that populist communication plays for Wagenknecht and the BSW, this article combines quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative analysis covers all speeches (10,000) and press releases (19,000) published by Die Linke members of Parliament (MPs; 2005–2023). The results show that Wagenknecht is the (former) Die Linke MP with the highest share of populist communication. Furthermore, she was also able to convince a group of populist MPs to join the BSW. The article closes with a qualitative analysis of BSW’s manifesto that reveals how populist framing plays a major role in this document, in which the political and economic elites are accused of working against the interest of “the majority”. Based on this analysis, the classification of the BSW as a populist party seems to be appropriate.
This study evaluates the challenges, institutional impacts and responses of German local authorities to the COVID-19 pandemic from a political science point of view. The main research question is how they have contributed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and to what extent the strengths and weaknesses of the German model of municipal autonomy have influenced their policy. It analyses the adaptation strategies of German local authorities and assesses the effectiveness of their actions up to now. Their implementation is then evaluated in five selected issues, e.g. adjustment organization and staff, challenges for local finances, local politics and citizen’s participation. This analysis is reflecting the scientific debate in Germany since the beginning of 2020, based on the available analyses of political science, law, economics, sociology and geography until end of March 2021.
In this article, I give an overview on nativist street protests in Germany from the early nineteenth century to the present from an historical perspective. In a preliminary re-mark, I will reflect on some recent developments in Germany, where nativist protest campaigns against immigration took place in the streets when voters were turning towards the populist radical right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). In the first section, I will outline an older tradition of anti-immigration protest in nineteenth and early twentieth century Germany, which is closely connected to modern antisemitism. In sections two and three, I will retrace how, from the late 1960s onward, the far right in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) discovered concerns about immigra-tion in the German population, addressed them in protest campaigns and developed narratives to integrate such sentiments into a broader right-wing extremist ideology, itself deeply rooted in antisemitism. Studying nativism and the radical right from an actor-oriented perspective, I will focus on traditionalist movements, including the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) and neo-Nazi groups.
Over the past decades, the traditional profile of the German administrative system has significantly been reshaped and remoulded through reforms and transformations. Manifold modernization efforts have been undertaken to adjust administrative structures and procedures to increasing challenges and pressures. In this chapter, the attempt is made to outline major institutional reform paths in Germany from Weberian bureaucracy to most recent reforms towards a digital transformation of public administration. We will show to what extent the German administrative system has moved away from the classical Weberian bureaucracy to a hybrid system where elements of the ‘old’ model and new reform paradigms such as the NPM and digital government are hybridized, labelled the Neo Weberian State. The question will be addressed as to what extent this shift has taken shape and which hurdles and path-dependencies can be identified to explain partial persistence and continuity over time.
This chapter outlines the organization and allocation of functions at the meso-level of government in Germany (states/Länder administrations). Furthermore, we shed light on the carriers and qualification profiles of the top bureaucrats in meso-level administrations. These high-rank territorial administrators/executives—state appointed heads of administrative districts (Regierungspräsidenten) on the one hand, elected heads of county administrations (Landräte) on the other hand—can be regarded as the German ‘equivalents’ of the prefects in countries with a Napoleonic administrative tradition. Finally, we analyse major reforms that have led to (at times, profound) transformations in territorial administrations, raising the question of to what extent alternative models of territorial bundling and coordination functions are sound and sustainable.
Die vorliegende Research Note stellt die erste systematische Dokumentation der Gesetzgebung in den deutschen Landtagen vor. Der Datensatz umfasst insgesamt 16.610 dokumentierte Gesetzgebungsvorgänge zwischen den Jahren 1990 und 2020. Nach einer Beschreibung des Datensatzes werden einige Gesetzgebungsmuster in den deutschen Ländern exemplarisch dargestellt. Die Landesgesetzgebung erweist sich dabei als stark durch den neuen Dualismus zwischen Regierung und Opposition geprägt. Im Initiativverhalten lassen sich zudem die Anreize des thematischen Parteienwettbewerbs ablesen. Wenig Evidenz findet sich für die These, dass innerkoalitionäre Gegensätze die Dauer der Gesetzgebungsverfahren in die Länge ziehen. Der mit dieser Research Note veröffentlichte Datensatz steht der Forschung für die Untersuchung zahlreicher weiterer Fragestellungen zur Verfügung.
We revisit the concept of Diversified Quality Production (DQP), which we introduced about 30 years ago. Our purpose is to examine the extent to which the concept can still be considered tenable for describing and explaining the development of the interaction between the political economy and concepts of production, notably in Germany. First, we show why and in which ways DQP was more heterogeneous than we had originally understood. Then, on the basis of evidence with respect to political, business, and economic changes in Germany, we show that DQP Mark I, a regime by and large characteristic of the 1980s, turned into DQP Mark II. In the process, major ‘complementarities’ disappeared between the late 1980s and now—mainly the complementarity between production modes on the one hand and industrial relations and economic regulation on the other. While the latter exhibit greater change, business strategies and production organization show more continuity, which helps explain how Germany maintained economic performance after the mid-2000s, more than other countries in Europe. Conceptually, our most important result is that the complementarities emphasized in political economy are historically relative and limited, so that they should not be postulated as stable configurations.
This study explores the theoretical and political potentials of Édouard Glissant’s philosophy of relation and its approach to the issues of borders, migration, and the setup of political communities as proposed by his pensée nouvelle de la frontière (new border thought), against the background of the German migration crisis of 2015. The main argument of this article is that Glissant’s work offers an alternative epistemological and normative framework through which the contemporary political issues arising around the phenomenon of repressive border regimes can be studied. To demonstrate this point, this article works with Glissant’s border thought as an analytical lens and proposes a pathway for studying the contemporary German border regime. Particular emphasis is placed on the identification of potential areas where a Glissantian politics of relation could intervene with the goal of transforming borders from impermeable walls into points of passage. By exploring the political implications of his border thought, as well as the larger philosophical context from which it emerges, while using a transdisciplinary approach that borrows from literary and political studies, this work contributes to ongoing debates in postcolonial studies on borders and borderlessness, as well as Glissant’s political legacy in the twenty-first century.
The chapter begins with a brief historical overview of Germany’s transition in the twentieth and twenty-first century from a transit and emigration country to one of immigration. The next part of this chapter looks at the challenges and problems facing German immigration policy within a multi-level federal system. Finally, the chapter gives an analysis of some of the trends in German migration policy since the refugee crisis in 2015, such as changes in the party system and in the concepts underlying migration policies to better manage, control and limit immigration to Germany.
Clusterpolitik als Politikfeld an der Schnittstelle von Industrie-, Innovations- (F&E) und Regionalpolitik entwickelte sich Mitte der 1990er Jahre zuerst in einigen EU Mitgliedsstaaten, darunter Deutschland. Mit einem Abstand von rund 10 Jahren begann die Herausbildung als eigenes Politikfeld in Frankreich. Die europäische Ebene begann ebenfalls erst ab Mitte der 2000er Jahre im Zusammenhang mit der Lissabon Strategie sich intensiver mit Clustern und Clusterpolitik zu beschäftigen und entwickelte ab 2008 Jahren einen systematischen Politikansatz.
Der Anstoß zur Politikfeldentwicklung auf dem Gebiet der Clusterpolitik ging in Europa also gerade nicht von der EU-Ebene aus. Auch wenn das Politikfeld „EU-Clusterpolitik“ einem erheblichen Wandel im Zuge der Europa 2020 Strategie unterlag, findet eine Koordinierung der mitgliedsstaatlichen Politiken durch die EU-Ebene bislang nicht statt und ist – soweit ersichtlich – von Seiten der EU auch nicht angestrebt. Die EU Clusterpolitik ist vielmehr komplementär und unterstützend zu den nationalen Politiken ausgerichtet.
In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird aufgezeigt, dass sich die drei clusterpolitischen Arenen EU, Deutschland, Frankreich weitestgehend unabhängig voneinander entwickelten und jeweils eigenen von unterschiedlichen Institutionen, Kontexten, Traditionen und Pfadabhängigkeiten bestimmten Logiken folgten. Sowohl der vertikale als auch der horizontale Verflechtungsgrad ist gering zwischen EU und Mitgliedsstaaten. Verflechtungsmuster beginnen gerade erst sich auszudifferenzieren. Jedoch sind Policy-Transfer oder sogar Policy-Learning Prozesse zwischen den drei Arenen EU, Deutschland und Frankreich schon in Ansätzen erkennbar.
Es gibt deutliche Unterschiede in den Clusterpolitiken Frankreichs und Deutschlands. Clusterpolitik wird in Deutschland in erster Linie auf Ebene der Länder konzipiert und implementiert, während sie in Frankreich nach wie vor vom Zentralstaat gesteuert wird – wenn auch mit zunehmend konzeptioneller Beteiligung der regionalen Ebene. Die Neuausrichtung der EU Clusterpolitik im Rahmen der Europa 2020 Strategie fand in Frankreich eine deutlich stärkere Resonanz als in Deutschland.
Die Handlungslogik hinter den clusterpolitischen Maßnahmen der EU mit Bezug zur Lissabon-Strategie lag in der Verbesserung der Innovationsfähigkeit – die Handlungslogik der clusterpolitischen Maßnahmen im Rahmen der Europa 2020 Strategie liegt in der Modernisierung der industriellen Basis Europas durch Entwicklung neuer Wertschöpfungsketten. Die EU Clusterpolitik unterlag insofern einem erheblichen Wandel.