320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (310) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (147)
- Part of a Book (89)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (26)
- Other (22)
- Doctoral Thesis (10)
- Review (9)
- Working Paper (3)
- Report (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (310) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (8)
- Integration (5)
- Security Council (5)
- decision-making (5)
- Migration (4)
- World Bank (4)
- discourse (4)
- governance (4)
- human rights (4)
- international organisations (4)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (310) (remove)
Der Beitrag widmet sich zwei überaus fruchtbaren theoretischen Ansätzen in der Policy-Forschung und darüber hinaus: der Vetospielertheorie und Vetopunkt-Ansätzen. Neben den Grundzügen beider Ansätze stellen wir grundlegende Entwicklungslinien und Probleme dieser Literaturen anhand beispielhafter Studien dar. Es zeigt sich, dass beide Ansätze teils kontroverse Annahmen treffen, zu denen es plausible Alternativen gibt. Zum Beispiel kann das Verhalten von Koalitionsparteien im Policy-Prozess anders als von der Vetospielertheorie angenommen modelliert werden. Die kausalen Effekte bestimmter Institutionen oder Vetopunkte können zudem je nach Kontext variieren. Diesem Kontext sollte größere Beachtung geschenkt werden.
Worldwide, governments have introduced novel information and communication technologies (ICTs) for policy formulation and service delivery, radically changing the working environment of government employees. Following the debate on work stress and particularly on technostress, we argue that the use of ICTs triggers “digital overload” that decreases government employees’ job satisfaction via inhibiting their job autonomy. Contrary to prior research, we consider job autonomy as a consequence rather than a determinant of digital overload, because ICT-use accelerates work routines and interruptions and eventually diminishes employees’ freedom to decide how to work. Based on novel survey data from government employees in Germany, Italy, and Norway, our structural equation modeling (SEM) confirms a significant negative effect of digital overload on job autonomy. More importantly, job autonomy partially mediates the negative relationship between digital overload and job satisfaction, pointing to the importance of studying the micro-foundations of ICT-use in the public sector.
The reorganization of governments is crucial for parties to express their policy preferences once they reach office. Yet these activities are not confined to the direct aftermath of general elections or to wide-ranging structural reforms. Instead, governments reorganize and adjust their machinery of government all the time. This paper aims to assess these structural choices with a particular focus at the core of the state, comparing four Western European democracies (Germany, France, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) from 1980 to 2013. Our empirical analysis shows that stronger shifts in cabinets' ideological profiles in the short- and long-term as well as the units' proximity to political executives yield significant effects. In contrast, Conservative governments, commonly regarded as key promoters of reorganizing governments, are not significant for the likelihood of structural change. We discuss the effects of this politics of government reorganization for different research debates assessing the inner workings of governments.
In recent years, governments have increased their efforts to strengthen the citizen-orientation in policy design. They have established temporary arenas as well as permanent units inside the machinery of government to integrate citizens into policy formulation, leading to a “laboratorization” of central government organizations. We argue that the evolution and role of these units herald new dynamics in the importance of organizational reputation for executive politics. These actors deviate from the classic palette of organizational units inside the machinery of government and thus require their own reputation vis-à-vis various audiences within and outside their parent organization. Based on a comparative case study of two of these units inside the German federal bureaucracy, we show how ambiguous expectations of their audiences challenge their organizational reputation. Both units resolve these tensions by balancing their weaker professional and procedural reputation with a stronger performative and moral reputation. We conclude that government units aiming to improve citizen orientation in policy design may benefit from engaging with citizens as their external audience to compensate for a weaker reputation in the eyes of their audiences inside the government organization. Points for practitioners: many governments have introduced novel means to strengthen citizen-centered policy design, which has led to an emergence of novel units inside central government that differ from traditional bureaucratic structures and procedures ; this study analyzes how these new units may build their organizational reputation vis-à-vis internal and external actors in government policymaking. ; we show that such units assert themselves primarily based on their performative and moral reputation.
Recent debates in international relations increasingly focus on bureaucratic apparatuses of international organizations and highlight their role, influence, and autonomy in global public policy. In this contribution we follow the recent call made by Moloney and Rosenbloom in this journal to make use of “public administrative theory and empirically based knowledge in analyzing the behavior of international and regional organizations” and offer a systematic analysis of the inner structures of these administrative bodies. Changes in these structures can reflect both the (re-)assignment of responsibilities, competencies, and expertise, but also the (re)allocation of resources, staff, and corresponding signalling of priorities. Based on organizational charts, we study structural changes within 46 international bureaucracies in the UN system. Tracing formal changes to all internal units over two decades, this contribution provides the first longitudinal assessment of structural change at the international level. We demonstrate that the inner structures of international bureaucracies in the UN system became more fragmented over time but also experienced considerable volatility with periods of structural growth and retrenchment. The analysis also suggests that IO's political features yield stronger explanatory power for explaining these structural changes than bureaucratic determinants. We conclude that the politics of structural change in international bureaucracies is a missing piece in the current debate on international public administrations that complements existing research perspectives by reiterating the importance of the political context of international bureaucracies as actors in global governance.
Who makes the world?
(2020)
In this essay, we consider the role of academics as change-makers. There is a long line of reflection about academics' sociopolitical role(s) in international relations (IR). Yet, our attempt differs from available considerations in two regards. First, we emphasize that academics are not a homogenous group. While some keep their distance from policymakers, others frequently provide policy advice. Hence, positions and possibilities of influence differ. Second, our argument is not oriented towards the past but the future. That is, we develop our reflections on academics as change-makers by outlining the vision of a 'FutureLab', an innovative, future forum that brings together different world-makers who are united in their attempt to improve 'the world'. Our vision accounts for current, perhaps alarming trends in academia, such as debates about the (in)ability to confront post-truth politics. Still, it is a (critically) optimistic one and can be read as an invitation for experimentation. Finally, we sympathize with voices demanding the democratization of academia and find that further cross-disciplinary dialogues within academia and dialogues between different academics, civil society activists and policymakers may help in finding creditable solutions to problems such as climate change and populism.
Zwischen Modellierung und Stakeholderbeteiligung - Wissensproduktion in der Energiewendeforschung
(2023)
Die Dekarbonisierung des Energiesystems ist Teil der international im Rahmen des Pariser Klimaabkommens beschlossenen CO2-Minderungsstrategie zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels. Nach den Verhandlungen und Beschlüssen der Klimaziele stehen politische Entscheider weltweit nun vor der Frage, wie sie diese erreichen können. Dies produziert eine hohe politische Nachfrage nach Wissen um die direkten und indirekten Effekte verschiedener Instrumente und potentiellen Entwicklungspfade einer Energiewende. Dieser gesellschaftliche Bedarf an wissenschaftlichen Antworten zu Lösungsoptionen wurde im Rahmen einer Klimafolgenforschung, genauer einer Klimapolitikfolgenforschung, aufgenommen. Der relativ neue Zweig einer Energiewendeforschung hat sich weltweit entwickelt, steht dabei allerdings vor der doppelten Herausforderung: Erstens befindet sich das Objekt der Forschung nicht im luftleeren Raum, sondern innerhalb ökonomischer, sozialer und politischer Zusammenhänge, hier gesellschaftliche Einbettung genannt. Denn die Frage, wie die Energiewende erreicht werden kann, wird auch außerhalb der Wissenschaft debattiert und stellt damit ein Aushandlungsfeld unterschiedlicher Interessen und Narrative dar. Zweitens befindet sich das zu untersuchende Objekt in der Zukunft, hier unter dem Terminus des strukturellen Nicht-Wissens zusammengefasst. Diese beiden Bedingungen führen dazu, dass konventionelle Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung nicht greifen und eine Öffnung und Transformation der Wissenschaft in Hinblick auf neue Methoden vonnöten ist (Nowotny 2001, Ravetz 2006, Schneidewind 2013). In dieser Arbeit untersuche ich zwei Möglichkeiten, wie mit der Herausforderung, Wissen unter der Bedingung des strukturellen Nicht-Wissens und der gesellschaftlichen Einbettung zu produzieren, in der Energiewendeforschung umgegangen wird. Einerseits wird dies durch die Einbeziehung von Stakeholdern, also nicht-wissenschaftlicher Akteure, in den Forschungsprozess getan. Andererseits ist die Nutzung von komplexen ökonometrischen Modellen zur Berechnung von Implikationen und energiewirtschaftlichen Entwicklungspfaden zu einem zentralen Mittel der Wissensgenerierung in der Energiewendeforschung avanciert. Damit wird der als Problem verstandenen strukturellen Bedingung des Nicht-Wissens insofern begegnet, als dass die Ergebnisse von Stakeholder-Involvement und von Modellierungsarbeiten zweifelsohne neues Wissen zur Verfügung stellen. Uneinigkeit besteht jedoch darin, worüber dieses Wissen etwas aussagt: Sind es Interessen oder legitime Perspektiven, die Stakeholder in den Forschungsprozess einbringen und sind Modelle vereinfachte Darstellungen der Welt oder sind sie Ausdruck der Vorstellung des Modellierers?
Majorities for minorities
(2022)
Does the process of making a constitution affect the expansiveness of rights protections in the constitution? In particular, is more participation in constitution-making processes better for minority rights protections? While the process of constitution making and its impact on various outcomes have received significant attention, little is known about the impact public participation or deliberation in this process has on the scope and content of minority rights. Using a wide variety of data to empirically assess the relationship between constitution-making processes and the protection of rights for minorities, we find a positive relationship between participatory drafting processes and the inclusion of minority protections in constitutions under some conditions. The article's findings have important implications for understanding political representation and lend support to core arguments about the role of the public in constitutional design.
Birds of a feather?
(2020)
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank ascribe to impartiality in their mandates. At the same time, scholarship indicates that their decisions are disproportionately influenced by powerful member states. Impartiality is seen as crucial in determining International Organizations' (IOs) effectiveness and legitimacy in the literature. However, we know little about whether key interlocutors in national governments perceive the International Financial Institutions as biased actors who do the bidding for powerful member states or as impartial executors of policy. In order to better understand these perceptions, we surveyed high-level civil servants who are chiefly responsible for four policy areas from more than 100 countries. We found substantial variations in impartiality perceptions. What explains these variations? By developing an argument of selective awareness, we extend rationalist and ideational perspectives on IO impartiality to explain domestic perceptions. Using novel survey data, we test whether staffing underrepresentation, voting underrepresentation, alignment to the major shareholders and overlapping economic policy paradigms are associated with impartiality perceptions. We find substantial evidence that shared economic policy paradigms influence impartiality perceptions. The findings imply that by diversifying their ideational culture, IOs can increase the likelihood that domestic stakeholders view them as impartial.
The liberal international order is being challenged and international organizations (IOs) are a main target of contestation. COVID-19 seems to exacerbate the situation with many states pursuing domestic strategies at the expense of multilateral cooperation. At the same time, IOs have traditionally benefited from cross-border crises. This article analyzes the policy responses of IOs to the exogenous COVID-19 shock by asking why some IOs use this crisis as an opportunity to expand their scope and policy instruments? It provides a cross-sectional analysis using original data on the responses of 75 IOs to COVID-19 during the first wave between March and June 2020. It finds that the bureaucratic capacity of IOs is significant when it comes to using the crisis as an opportunity. It also finds some evidence that the number of COVID-19 cases among the member states affects policy responses and that general purpose IOs have benefited more.
Introduction
(2022)
Several global governance initiatives launched in recent years have explicitly sought to integrate concern for gender equality and gendered harms into efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism (CT/CVE). As a result, commitments to gender-sensitivity and gender equality in international and regional CT/CVE initiatives, in national action plans, and at the level of civil society programming, have become a common aspect of the multilevel governance of terrorism and violent extremism. In light of these developments, aspects of our own research have turned in the past years to explore how concerns about gender are being incorporated in the governance of (counter-)terrorism and violent extremism, and how this development has affected (gendered) practices and power relations in counterterrorism policymaking and implementation. We were inspired by the growing literature on gender and CT/CVE, and critical scholarship on terrorism and political violence, to bring together a collection of new research addressing these questions.