320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (147)
- Part of a Book (89)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (26)
- Other (22)
- Doctoral Thesis (15)
- Review (9)
- Master's Thesis (5)
- Report (3)
- Working Paper (3)
- Postprint (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (324) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (8)
- Integration (5)
- Security Council (5)
- World Bank (5)
- decision-making (5)
- Migration (4)
- Politikunterricht (4)
- digitalization (4)
- discourse (4)
- executive personalism (4)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (324) (remove)
Immune to COVID?
(2021)
While school supervision structures in the German Länder were extensively reformed during the last decades, systematic analyses of these reforms are missing. This chapter contributes to this research gap by providing an overview of the implemented reforms of school supervision structures in the German Länder. The effects of these reforms are analysed in order to answer the question of whether a convergence of school supervision systems is a result of these reforms. In a first step, a distinction is made to identify system-changing reforms. Although a decrease of the number or a concentration on one school supervision system is not a result of the analysis, it is argued that there is a convergence of school supervision structures, as a clear trend against school supervision systems with lower school supervisory boards can be observed.
Das Zusammenwirken der Ortsbeiräte mit der Stadtverwaltung und der Stadtverordnetenversammlung
(2021)
Die aktuelle Politik der Europäischen Union hat im Umgang mit flüchtenden Menschen das Mittelmeer in ein Massengrab verwandelt. Dass auch im Jahr 2021 täglich Menschen an den EU-Außengrenzen sterben hängt dabei mit dem Ausbau von Sicherheitsmechanismen zum Zweck eines verstärkten Grenzschutzes zusammen. Durch Sicherheitsmechanismen wie bspw. den Ausbau von Frontex und die elektronische Erfassung von Ein- und Ausreisedaten schottet sich die EU dabei immer weiter ab während gleichzeitig die Thematik der Flucht und Migration eine zunehmende ‚Versicherheitlichung‘ erfährt.
Die vorliegende Arbeit geht davon aus, dass die Grundzüge der Versicherheitlichung von Flucht und Migration bereits im liberalen Staatsverständnis der EU angelegt sind. Mithilfe einer foucaultschen Diskursanalyse hinterfragt die Arbeit daher die historisch entstandenen und im Liberalismus inbegriffenen Vorannahmen über nicht-europäische Menschen und deren Fortentwicklung in die heutigen Politiken der EU. Dabei geht die Arbeit einerseits der Frage nach, wie sich die zunehmende Versicherheitlichung der Migration und der damit verbundene Umgang mit Nicht-Europäer*innen an den EU-Außengrenzen erklären lässt. Vertieft wird gefragt, inwieweit sich die konstruierten Wissensmuster über das europäische ‚wir‘ und die nicht-europäischen ‚Anderen‘ aus dem Liberalismus in der heutigen EU-Politik wiederfinden.
Auf Basis der Werke Michel Foucaults führt die Arbeit in die Entwicklung liberaler Staatlichkeit seit dem 17. Jahrhundert ein. Ergänzt werden diese Darstellungen um eine postkoloniale Perspektive, die eine Darstellung des liberalen Denkens über das europäische ‚Außen‘ vermittelt. Gemeinsam legen diese beiden Perspektiven die Strukturen liberalen Denkens offen, die im späteren Verlauf der Analyse in aktuellen EU-Dokumenten wiedererkannt werden. Als Analysedokumente dienen dabei sechs von der EU veröffentlichte Agenden, Verordnungen und Strategien, die die thematische Schnittstelle zwischen Sicherheit und Migration umfassen.
Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich ein ‚Othering‘ - die historisch entstandene Gruppenbildung des homogen begriffenen europäischen ‚Wirs‘ gegenüber den nicht-europäischen ‚Anderen‘ - in der heutigen Politik der EU an deren Außengrenzen reproduziert. Das im 17. Jahrhundert entstandene Sicherheitsdenken des liberalen Staates wird über die Reproduktion bestimmter Wissensmuster in Form von ‚Stories‘ auf die heutigen EU-Außengrenzen übertragen. Nach ‚innen‘ handelt die EU dabei nach einem Grundsatz der ‚gemeinsamen Stärke‘ der europäischen Staaten bzw. der EU-Mitgliedstaaten, während nach ‚außen‘ eine zweckrationale Kooperation mit Drittstaaten verfolgt wird. Statt um die Wahrung von Menschenleben geht es damals wie heute v.a. um den Vorteil Europas bzw. der EU. Von diesen Ergebnissen ausgehend wird die Zunahme der Versicherheitlichung von Flucht und Migration an den EU-Außengrenzen durch die Reproduktion des geschichtlich entstandenen Sicherheitsdenkens erklärt.
This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of 'normal governance' and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less - as in Germany and France - on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures.
Points for practitioners
COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts.
Gender at the crossroads
(2021)
Since the early 2000s, the United Nations (UN) global counterterrorism architecture has seen significant changes towards increased multilateralism, a focus on prevention, and inter-institutional coordination across the UN’s three pillars of work. Throughout this reform process, gender aspects have increasingly become presented as a “cross-cutting” theme. In this article, I investigate the role of gender in the UN’s counterterrorism reform process at the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, or “triple nexus”, from a feminist institutionalist perspective. I conduct a feminist discourse analysis of the counterterrorism discourses of three UN entities, which represent the different UN pillars of peace and security (DPO), development (UNDP), and humanitarianism and human rights (OHCHR). The article examines the role of gender in the inter-institutional reform process by focusing on the changes, overlaps and differences in the discursive production of gender in the entities’ counterterrorism agendas over time and in two recent UN counterterrorism conferences. I find that gendered dynamics of nested newness and institutional layering have played an essential role both as a justification for the involvement of individual entities in counterterrorism and as a vehicle for inter-institutional cooperation and struggle for discursive power.
From laggards to leaders
(2021)
The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change embraces the participation of non-state actors in a separate governance track – the ‘Non-state actor zone for global action’ (nazca) – that runs alongside the formal track of unfccc negotiations and the implementation of the Paris Agreement by State Parties through ‘nationally determined contributions’. unfccc Secretariat is entrusted with orchestrating non-state global and transnational initiatives, partnerships and networks. The involvement of non-state actors in the implementation of the Paris Agreement helps to address an action gap by countries that are unable or unwilling to implement ambitious ndcs.
However, the increased prominence of initiatives driven by non-state actors also increases their direct and indirect influence on processes and rules which raises a number of questions with regards to the legitimacy of action and the democratic deficit of the global climate regime. Balancing legitimacy with effectiveness requires non-state initiatives to ensure transparent and inclusive governance, and accountability towards progress against their goals and pledges.
Despite its encouragement towards private initiatives, the Paris Agreement creates surprisingly little regulatory space for non-state actors to gain hold. Neither are there measures that would link ndcs to nazca initiatives, nor are functional requirements such as transparency or reporting extended to non-state initiatives. While the Paris Agreement marks an important step towards harnessing private sector ability and ambition for climate action, more remains to be done to create a truly enabling framework for private action to strive and complement public efforts to address climate change.
Effectiveness
(2021)
Bundesrechnungshof
(2021)
Der Bundesrechnungshof schaut mittlerweile auf eine über 300 jährige Geschichte der Finanzkontrolle zurück (vgl. Engels 2014). Auch wenn Aufgaben und Organisation damaliger Rechenkammern bestenfalls rudimentär mit den Einrichtungen moderner Finanzkontrolle vergleichbar sind, so legten sie doch einst deren Grundstein. Heute ist der Bundesrechnungshof eine oberste Bundesbehörde und prüft laut Artikel 114 Abs. 2 GG die „Rechnung sowie die Wirtschaftlichkeit und Ordnungsmäßigkeit der Haushalts- und Wirtschaftsführung des Bundes.“ Weitere Regelungen für den Bundesrechnungshof finden sich in der Bundeshaushaltsordnung (BHO, hier Teil V Rechnungsprüfung bis Teil VIII Entlastung, §§ 88 bis 114) und im Bundesrechnungshofgesetz (BRHG vom 11.07.1985, mit letzter Änderung vom 05.02.2009).
World Bank evaluations show that recipient performance varies substantially between different projects. Extant research has focused on country-level variables when explaining these variations. This article goes beyond country-level explanations and highlights the role of World Bank staff. We extend established arguments in the literature on compliance with the demands of International Organizations (IOs) and hypothesize that IO staff can shape recipient performance in three ways. First, recipient performance may be influenced by the quality of IO staff monitoring and supervision. Second, the leniency and stringency with which IO staff apply the aid agreement could improve recipient performance. Third, recipient performance may depend on whether IO staff can identify and mobilize supportive interlocutors through their networks in the recipient country. We test these arguments by linking a novel database on the tenure of World Bank task team leaders to projects evaluated between 1986 and 2020. The findings are consistent with the expectation that World Bank staff play an important role, but only in investment projects. There is substantial evidence that World Bank staff supervisory ability and country experience are linked to recipient performance in those projects. Less consistent evidence indicates that leniency could matter. These findings imply that World Bank staff play an important role in facilitating implementation of investment projects.