320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Monograph/Edited Volume (10)
- Article (5)
- Master's Thesis (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (22) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (22) (remove)
Institute
- WeltTrends e.V. Potsdam (9)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (4)
- 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)
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.
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.
In der vorliegenden Arbeit analysiert Maciej Chinalski den Regional Governance Ansatz und seine praktische Umsetzung in den Europäischen Grenzregionen zwischen Deutschland und Polen (Oder-Partnerschaft) sowie im Vierländereck von Österreich, Ungarn, Tschechien und Slowakei (Centrope-Region). Regional Governance gilt als eine Kooperationsform unterschiedlicher regionaler Akteure, die nach neuen Synergien suchen, um ihre Zusammenarbeit voranzutreiben. Eine Region wird dabei als Raum verstärkter Interaktionen zwischen Staat, Zivilgesellschaft und Wirtschaft verstanden.
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.
This article expands our current knowledge about ministerial selection in coalition governments and analyses why ministerial candidates succeed in acquiring a cabinet position after general elections. It argues that political parties bargain over potential office-holders during government-formation processes, selecting future cabinet ministers from an emerging bargaining pool'. The article draws upon a new dataset comprising all ministrable candidates discussed by political parties during eight government-formation processes in Germany between 1983 and 2009. The conditional logit regression analysis reveals that temporal dynamics, such as the day she enters the pool, have a significant effect on her success in achieving a cabinet position. Other determinants of ministerial selection discussed in the existing literature, such as party and parliamentary expertise, are less relevant for achieving ministerial office. The article concludes that scholarship on ministerial selection requires a stronger emphasis for its endogenous nature in government-formation as well as the relevance of temporal dynamics in such processes.
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.
Deutsche Rohstoffpolitik
(2011)
In einer Welt mit stetig wachsendem Energiebedarf herrscht ein Kampf um Ressourcen, sodass Rohstoffe zunehmend politisches Handeln bestimmen. Lutz Kleinwächter, Volker Steinbach, Leiter der Deutschen Rohstoffagentur, und Rüdiger Schwarz analysieren die deutsche Rohstoffstrategie. Wissen wir, was wir tun müssen, oder tappen wir bald planlos durchs Dunkel, weil uns die Energie ausgeht?
Anfang des Jahres 2008 erkannte die Bundesrepublik Deutschland den Kosovo als souveränen Staat an, während sich die Europäische Union mit dieser Entscheidung zurückhielt. Die Politikwissenschaftlerin Franziska Krämer untersucht in ihrer Arbeit „Die Politik Deutschlands in der Kosovofrage“ das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen eigenständiger deutscher und europäischer Außenpolitik. Am Beispiel des Kosovo wird die Problematik der Verflechtung von deutschen und europäischen Politikebenen diskutiert. Die Autorin kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die deutsche Kosovopolitik als Beispiel einer neuen deutschen Außenpolitik und nicht als der Beginn einer Europäisierung deutscher Außenpolitik zu sehen ist.
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.
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.