320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (53) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (31)
- Part of a Book (17)
- Other (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Postprint (1)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (53) (remove)
Keywords
- International Financial Institutions (2)
- World Bank (2)
- bias (2)
- discourse (2)
- Active learning (1)
- Antifeminismus (1)
- Arbeitsmarkt (1)
- Ausländerbehörde (1)
- CORONA-Krise (1)
- Changing nature of armed conflict (1)
- Counterterrorism (1)
- Deutschland (1)
- Dezentralisierung (1)
- Education (1)
- Flüchtlingskrise (1)
- Forschungsmethoden (1)
- Frauen (1)
- Frauenhass (1)
- Föderalismus (1)
- German science council (1)
- Germany (1)
- Gewalt (1)
- Global order (1)
- Hanau (1)
- Impartiality (1)
- Incels (1)
- Informal reform (1)
- Institutional change (1)
- Integration (1)
- Interdisciplinary research (1)
- Interdisziplinarität (1)
- International (1)
- International Monetary Fund (1)
- International cooperation (1)
- International relations (1)
- Internationalisierung (1)
- Isla Vista (1)
- Kommune (1)
- Krisenmanagement (1)
- Manosphere (1)
- Mehrebenensystem (1)
- Methodenpluralismus (1)
- Methodological pluralism (1)
- Migration (1)
- Monetary Fund (1)
- Nachwuchsförderung (1)
- Negotiation (1)
- Paris Agreement (1)
- Policy recommendations (1)
- Politikberatung (1)
- Promoting young researchers (1)
- Rechtsextremismus (1)
- Rechtsterrorismus (1)
- Reddit (1)
- Research methods (1)
- Rio Conventions (1)
- Security council (1)
- Security council reform (1)
- Sexismus (1)
- Simulations (1)
- UN (1)
- United Nations (1)
- Verflechtung (1)
- Verwaltung (1)
- Wissenschaftsrat (1)
- agency (1)
- authoritarian rule (1)
- borders (1)
- citizenship (1)
- climate mitigation (1)
- comparative (1)
- contentious politics (1)
- contestation (1)
- de facto authority (1)
- de jure authority (1)
- democracy (1)
- dictatorship (1)
- drug control (1)
- expert authority (1)
- feminism (1)
- gender mainstreaming (1)
- global environmental governance (1)
- health security (1)
- human rights (1)
- impartiality (1)
- institutional change (1)
- institutional interplay (1)
- intergovernmental treaty secretariats (1)
- international (1)
- international organisations (1)
- international public administration (1)
- land management (1)
- meso-level of government (1)
- multiplicity (1)
- natural climate solutions (1)
- non-state actors (1)
- norm collisions (1)
- orchestration (1)
- policy (1)
- policy substitutes (1)
- political campaigns (1)
- political repression (1)
- political stability (1)
- protection (1)
- responsibility (1)
- restoration (1)
- scholar-practitioners (1)
- security–development nexus (1)
- state repression (1)
- state security (1)
- territorial administration (1)
- transdisciplinarity (1)
- un-cancelling the future (1)
- world-makers (1)
- Öffentliche Verwaltung (1)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (53) (remove)
Heterogenität
(2020)
Einführung
(2020)
Henrik Ibsen behandelt in seinem Schauspiel Ein Volksfeind (1882) einen Umweltskandal, was das Stück zeitlos aktuell macht. Heutige Inszenierungen können umstandslos an die hier vorgestellten Umweltprobleme und den Umgang damit in der nach dem Mehrheitsprinzip verfahrenden Demokratie anknüpfen. In dem Beitrag wird zunächst der Begriffsgeschichte von „Volksfeind“ nachgegangen, vom Römischen Reich über die Französische Revolution, die totalitären Diktaturen des 20. Jahrhunderts bis zur heutigen Bundesrepublik und den USA. Im Weiteren werden die im Stück thematisierten Verhältnisse von Mehrheit und Minderheit sowie Macht und Recht im politisch-gesellschaftlichen Gefüge vor dem Hintergrund demokratietheoretischer Überlegungen von Alexis die Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill und Emma Goldman untersucht. Schließlich werden die im Volksfeind aufgeworfenen Fragen nach der Möglichkeit von Bildung und politischer Mündigkeit vor dem Hintergrund heutiger postfaktischer Tendenzen, von Politik mit „alternativen Fakten“, Bullshit und Lügen diskutiert.
Eine relevante und höchst aktuelle Überschneidung fachübergreifender und fachspezifischer sprachlicher Phänomene hat Elisabeth Wehling mit ihrem 2016 erschienenen Buch „Politisches Framing“ einer breiten Öffentlichkeit, die weit über fachwissenschaftliche Kreise hinaus geht, dargelegt. Wehling erläutert darin an zahlreichen Beispielen, dass in politischen Debatten und für ihre Wirkung nicht zuerst die vorgetragenen Fakten entscheidend sind, sondern gedankliche Deutungsrahmen — in den Kognitionswissenschaften Frames genannt — die den Fakten eine Bedeutung verleihen. Informationen werden demnach in Relation zu Erfahrungen und Vorwissen als relevant oder irrelevant eingeordnet sowie durch Frames bewertet und interpretiert. Dadurch beeinflussen Frames — häufig unbewusst — Denken und Handeln. (Wehling, S. 17 ff.) Eine Auseinandersetzung mit den von Wehling dargelegten Erkenntnissen im Rahmen des Politikunterrichts ermöglicht die Entwicklung und Förderung von sprachlicher und fachlicher Kompetenz. Dieser Beitrag fasst die von Wehling dargelegten Erkenntnisse zusammen und erläutert das didaktische Potenzial des Themas Politisches Framing anhand kompetenzbezogener Aufgaben für den Politikunterricht.
Dieser Beitrag reflektiert und ergänzt die aktuelle Diskussion über die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats zur Weiterentwicklung der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir richten dabei den Blick auf die vom Wissenschaftsrat attestierten Schwachstellen im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden und erläutern ihre Auswirkungen auf Interdisziplinarität, Internationalität und Politikberatung der deutschen Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir argumentieren, unter Verweis auf den Bericht des Wissenschaftsrats, dass eine breitere Methodenausbildung und -kenntnis von großer Bedeutung für interdisziplinäre und internationale Zusammenarbeit, aber auch für die Politikberatung ist. Zukünftige Initiativen innerhalb der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung sollten die Methodenvielfalt des Forschungsbereichs angemessen berücksichtigen und einen besonderen Fokus auf die Ausbildung im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden legen, um das Forschungsfeld in diesem Bereich zu stärken. Unser Beitrag entspringt einer Diskussion innerhalb des Arbeitskreises „Empirische Methoden der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung“ der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Friedens- und Konfliktforschung.
How do active learning environments—by means of simulations—enhance political science students’ learning outcomes regarding different levels of knowledge? This paper examines different UN simulations in political science courses to demonstrate their pedagogical value and provide empirical evidence for their effectiveness regarding three levels of knowledge (factual, procedural and soft skills). Despite comprehensive theoretical claims about the positive effects of active learning environments on learning outcomes, substantial empirical evidence is limited. Here, we focus on simulations to systematically test previous claims and demonstrate their pedagogical value. Model United Nations (MUNs) have been a popular teaching device in political science. To gain comprehensive data about the active learning effects of MUNs, we collect data and evaluate three simulations covering the whole range of simulation characteristics: a short in-class simulation of the UN Security Council, a regional MUN with different committees being simulated, and two delegations to the National Model United Nations, for which the students prepare for 1 year. Comparative results prove that simulations need to address certain characteristics in order to produce extensive learning outcomes. Only comprehensive simulations are able to achieve all envisioned learning outcomes regarding factual and procedural knowledge about the UN and soft skills.
Die Manosphere
(2020)
Die sogenannte Manosphere – eine digitale Gemeinschaft, die sich hauptsächlich durch misogyne und antifeministische Beiträge und Ideologien auszeichnet – ist aufgrund ihrer Verbindung zu verschiedenen Terroranschlägen in der letzten Zeit verstärkt in das Blickfeld der Medien gelangt. Dieser Beitrag untersucht die bislang häufig vernachlässigte Rolle digitaler Räume und Netzwerke im Kontext regressiver, frauenfeindlicher Ideologien und daraus erwachsende gewalttätige antifeministische Handlungsrepertoires aus Perspektive der Bewegungsforschung. Am Beispiel der Manosphere auf der Plattform Reddit zeige ich, wie durch das Zusammenspiel zwischen technologischer Infrastruktur und regressiver Ideologie die Grundlage für die Mobilisierung und Sozialisierung in antifeministische Bewegungskulturen mit gewalttätigen Handlungsrepertoires on- und offline geschaffen wird.
The United Nations (UN) policy agenda on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) promotes a “holistic” approach to counterterrorism, which includes elements traditionally found in security and development programs. Advocates of the agenda increasingly emphasize the importance of gender mainstreaming for counterterrorism goals. In this article, I scrutinize the merging of the goals of gender equality, security, and development into a global agenda for counterterrorism. A critical feminist discourse-analytical reading of gender representations in P/CVE shows how problematic imageries of women as victims, economic entrepreneurs, and peacemakers from both the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Women, Peace and Security agenda are reproduced in core UN documents advocating for a “holistic” P/CVE approach. By highlighting the tensions that are produced by efforts to merge the different gender discourses across the UN’s security and development institutions, the article underlines the relevance of considering the particular position of P/CVE at the security–development nexus for further gender-sensitive analysis and policies of counterterrorism.
To ensure political survival, autocrats must prevent popular rebellion, and political repression is a means to that end. However, autocrats face threats from both the inside and the outside of the center of power. They must avoid popular rebellion and at the same time share power with strategic actors who enjoy incentive to challenge established power-sharing arrangements whenever repression is ordered. Can autocrats turn repression in a way that allows trading one threat off against the other? This chapter first argues that prior research offers scant insight on that question because it relies on umbrella concepts and questionable measurements of repression. Next, the chapter disaggregates repression into restrictions and violence and reflects on their drawbacks. Citizens adapt to the restriction of political civil liberties, and violence backfires against its originators. Hence, restrictions require enforcement, and violence requires moderation. When interpreted as complements, it becomes clear that restrictions and violence have the potential to compensate for their respective weaknesses. The complementarity between violence and restrictions turns political repression into a valuable addition to the authoritarian toolkit. The chapter concludes with an application of these ideas to the twin problems of authoritarian control and power-sharing.
This chapter operationalizes the three fundamental concepts of this study. It outlines what counts as authoritarian rule, it explains how to recognize dissent in non-democratic contexts, and it debates how to quantify repression in the shadow of the politicized discourse on human rights. First, the chapter opts to classify every political regime as authoritarian that fails to elect its executive or legislature in free and competitive elections. Second, the chapter proposes to see dissent through the lens of campaigns, i.e., series of connected contentious events that involve large-scale collective action and formulate far-reaching political demands. Finally, after some elaboration on the problems involved in measuring political repression reliably and validly, the chapter turns to rescaled versions of the Human Rights Protection Scores 2.04 and the V-Dem 6.2 political civil liberties index as indicators for violence and restrictions. This choice of indicators of repression is, finally, defended against three central objections: the separability of violence from restrictions, the so-called information paradox, and, finally, differences in the timing of violence and restrictions.
Campaigns against authoritarian rule trigger the problems of authoritarian control and power-sharing. Hence, autocrats cannot ignore campaigns, but can they repress them? This chapter hypothesizes that restrictions and violence do just that—if those forms of political repression complement each other. Each variant of political repression has drawbacks: Restrictions dampen, but they do not eliminate interdependent behavior; violence imposes high individual costs on dissent, but it frequently backfires against its originators. Complementarity asserts that those drawbacks matter less when both variants of repression work in tandem. Statistical analysis of 50 campaigns distributed across 112 authoritarian regimes between 1977 and 2001 yields mixed support for the argument. Based on a binary probit model with sample selection correction, the analysis adds a preemptive and a reactive aspect to political repression. The results imply that complementarity matters as long as repression preempts campaigns, but not when it reacts to them. Moreover, once citizens knock at the palace gates, restrictions turn futile. Finally, violence reduces the outlook for successful resistance against authoritarian rule, but it also backfires at all times—preemptive and reactive. By implication, political repression thwarts successful resistance today, but it breeds more resistance tomorrow.
Does complementarity between restrictions and violence stabilize authoritarian power-sharing in the face of popular rebellion? Scholars widely concur that the central political conflict in authoritarian regimes plays out between people on the inside of the regime. This chapter adds to the debate and studies coup attempts in light of two interconnected hypotheses. First, violence against campaigns destabilizes power-sharing because it exposes a weak leadership. Second, this adverse effect of violence declines as the routine level of restrictions increases, because restrictions act as a sorting mechanism for uncompromising political opposition. Both hypotheses are tested using Bayesian multilevel statistical analysis on a data set of 253 coup attempts in 198 authoritarian regimes between 1949 and 2007. This study design allows separation of repression’s time-dependent effects from its context effects, and it demonstrates the value of Bayesian methods for studying rare political phenomena such as coups d’état. The chapter’s conclusion, however, is straightforward: Once citizens form campaigns, repression can only deteriorate the situation because it opens a frontline right at the center of authoritarian rule.
The past few years have witnessed a growing interest among scholars and policy-makers in the interplay of international bureaucracies with civil society organizations, non-profit entities, and the private sector. Authors concerned with global environmental politics have made considerable progress in capturing this phenomenon. Nevertheless, we still lack in-depth empirical knowledge on the precise nature of such institutional interlinkages across governance levels and scales. Building upon the concept oforchestration, this article focuses on the relationship between specific types of international bureaucracies and actors other than the nation-state. In particular, we investigate how the secretariats of the three Rio Conventions reach out to non-state actors in order to exert influence on the outcome of international environmental negotiations. Our analysis demonstrates that the three intergovernmental treaty secretariats utilize various styles of orchestration in their relation to non-state actors and seek to push the global responses to the respective transboundary environmental problems forward. This article points to a recent trend towards a direct collaboration between these secretariats and non-state actors which gives rise to the idea that new alliances between these actors are emerging in global environmental governance.
The chapter explores aspects of ‘memory games’ in postcommunist Poland vis-à-vis the country’s authoritarian communist past. In particular, it is interested in the populist moments of lustration and de-communization, and also after October 2015 when the right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS) won the parliamentary and presidential elections in Poland. The main argument is that even though legitimate considerations of lustration and de-communization play a role, a number of policies dealing with transitional justice are related to populist mobilization by the PiS. Against this background, the chapter discusses how far the transitional justice has been accompanied by the process of reframing the political memory about the guilt, suffering, and righteousness during communism. Populist legitimation aims at reconfiguring the public discourse on the transitional justice in a way that it is used to justify controversial public policies in tune with the interest of the groups currently in power, which present themselves as the true voice of the people. The core of the article deals with three main aspects of Polish memory games: (1) the meandering of lustration (mainly with regard to the position of the PiS/Law and Justice and PO/Civic Platform – the largest Polish political parties since 2005), (2) the lustration as the function of power, and (3) the role of the Institute of National Remembrance as a case of institutionalized memory games.
Der Diskurs über Sprachbildung beziehungsweise sprachsensiblen Fachunterricht im Bereich der Politischen Bildung ist bislang noch verhalten. Beiträge zu diesem Thema orientieren sich zumeist an der praktischen Umsetzung herangetragener bildungspolitischer Forderungen und übernehmen in der Regel Konzepte für den Fachunterricht im Allgemeinen mit dem Versuch diese für die Politische Bildung zu adaptieren. Eine Theorieentwicklung aus politikdidaktischer Perspektive findet derzeit kaum statt. Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt den bisherigen Diskurs mit Blick auf die Politikdidaktik vor, um im Anschluss Impulse für eine Konzeptionalisierung sprachsensiblen Unterrichts aus Perspektive der Politischen Bildung zu geben.
Die tagespolitische Auseinandersetzung stellt sich als eine Für- und Gegenrede zu politischen Problemen, Herausforderungen oder Handlungsinitiativen dar: Verschiedene Akteure äußern sich kritisch oder befürwortend zu vollzogenen oder geplanten politischen Maßnahmen wie auch – ebenso kritisch oder befürwortend – zu getätigten Äußerungen anderer politischer und medialer Akteure. Insgesamt werden dabei eine Vielzahl von Argumenten mit unterschiedlicher Reichweite und Intensität ausgetauscht, aufgegriffen und verworfen. Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass solche sprachlich verfassten Auseinandersetzungen Legitimationsdiskurse sind, in denen Legitimität anhand normativer Werte verhandelt wird. Dort genutzte Wertkategorien bleiben jedoch deutungsoffen und oft implizit. Um politisches Lernen zu fördern, erweist sich eine gemeinsame Bearbeitung solcher Legitimationsdiskurse als gewinnbringend. Zentral dafür ist, dass Legitimationsargumente in Lehr-Lernarrangements explizit und verhandelbar werden.
The chapter explores how the Security Council has reacted to the changing global order in terms of institutional reform and its working methods. First, we look at how the Security Council’s setup looks increasingly anachronistic against the tremendous shifts in global power. Yet, established and rising powers are not disengaging. In contrast, they are turning to the Council to address growing challenges posed by the changing nature of armed conflict, the surge of terrorism and foreign fighters, nuclear proliferation and persistent intra-state conflicts. Then, we explore institutional and political hurdles for Council reform. While various reform models have been suggested, none of them gained the necessary global support. Instead, we demonstrate how the Council has increased the representation of emerging powers in informal ways. Potential candidates for permanent seats and their regional counterparts are committed as elected members, peacekeeping contributors or within the Peacebuilding Commission. Finally, we analyze how innovatively the Council has reacted to global security challenges. This includes working methods reform, expansion of sanctions regimes and involvement of non-state actors. We conclude that even though the Council’s membership has not yet been altered, it has reacted to the changing global order in ways previously unaccounted for.
In recent years the framings of global health security have shifted while the structures governing global health have largely remained the same. One feature of the emerging re-ordering is the unresolved allocation of accountability between state and non-state actors. This brings to critical challenges to global health security to the fore. The first is that the consensus on the seeming shift from state to human security framing with regard to the global human right to health (security) risks losing its salience. Second, this conceptual challenge is mirrored on the operational level: if states and non-state actors do not assume responsibility for health security, who or what can guarantee health security? In order to address global health security against the backdrop of these twenty-first Century challenges, this article proceeds in three parts. First, it analyses the shortcomings of the current state-based World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health security. Second, taking into account the rising pressures posed to global health security and the inadequacy both of state-based and of ad hoc non-state responses, it proposes a new framing. Third, the article offers initial insights into the operational application of beyond state responses to (health) security challenges.