320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (43) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (18)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Review (4)
- Part of Periodical (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Master's Thesis (1)
- Other (1)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (43)
Keywords
- Nachhaltigkeit (12)
- Armut (11)
- Grundsicherung (11)
- Ressourcen (11)
- Deutsche Außenpolitik (2)
- Europa (2)
- Accountability (1)
- Arbeitsmarktpolitik (1)
- Belastung (1)
- Central Asia (1)
Zwischen Sein und Sollen
(2015)
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the most important multilateral institutions having the ambition to shape global governance and the only organ of the global community that can adopt legally binding resolutions for the maintenance of international peace and security and, if necessary, authorize the use of force. Created in the aftermath of World War II by its victors, the UNSC’s constellation looks increasingly anachronistic, however, in light of the changing global distribution of power. Adapting the institutional structure and decision-making procedures of the UNSC has proven to be one of the most difficult challenges of the last decades, while it is the institution that has probably been faced with the most vociferous calls for reform. Although there have been changes to the informal ways in which outside actors are drawn into the UNSC’s work and activities, many of the major players in the current international system seem to be deprived from equal treatment in its core patterns of decision-making. Countries such as Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, alongside emerging African nations such as Nigeria and South Africa, are among the states eager to secure permanent representation on the Council. By comparison, selected BRICS countries, China and Russia - in contrast to their role in other multilateral institutions - are permanent members of the UNSC and with this, have been “insiders” for a long time. This renders the situation of the UNSC different from global institutions, in which traditionally, Western powers have dominated the agenda.
The role of knowledge in the policy process remains a central theoretical puzzle in policy analysis and political science. This article argues that an important yet missing piece of this puzzle is the systematic exploration of the political use of policy knowledge. While much of the recent debate has focused on the question of how the substantive use of knowledge can improve the quality of policy choices, our understanding of the political use of knowledge and its effects in the policy process has remained deficient in key respects. A revised conceptualization of the political use of knowledge is introduced that emphasizes how conflicting knowledge can be used to contest given structures of policy authority. This allows the analysis to differentiate between knowledge creep and knowledge shifts as two distinct types of knowledge effects in the policy process. While knowledge creep is associated with incremental policy change within existing policy structures, knowledge shifts are linked to more fundamental policy change in situations when the structures of policy authority undergo some level of transformation. The article concludes by identifying characteristics of the administrative structure of policy systems or sectors that make knowledge shifts more or less likely.
This PhD thesis is essentially a collection of six sequential articles on dynamics of accountability in the reformed employment and welfare administration in different countries. The first article examines how recent changes in the governance of employment services in three European countries (Denmark, Germany and Norway) have influenced accountability relationships from a very wide-ranging perspective. It starts from the overall assumption in the literature that accountability relationships are becoming more numerous and complex, and that these changes may lead to multiple accountability disorder. The article explores these assumptions by analyzing the different actors involved and the information requested in the new governance arrangements in all three countries. It concludes that the considerable changes in organizational arrangements and more managerial information demanded and provided have led to more shared forms of accountability. Nevertheless, a clear development towards less political or administrative accountability could not be observed.
The second article analyzes how the structure and development of reform processes affect accountability relationships and via what mechanisms. It is distinguished between an instrumental perspective and an institutional perspective and each of these perspectives takes a different view on the link between reforms and concrete action and results. By taking the welfare reforms in Norway and Germany as an example, it is shown that the reform outcomes in both countries are the result of a complex process of powering, puzzling and institutional constraints where different situational interpretations of problems, interests and administrative legacies had to be balanced. Accountability thus results not from a single process of environmental necessity or strategic choice, but from a dynamic interplay between different actors and institutional spheres.
The third article then covers a specific instrument of public sector reforms, i.e. the increasing use of performance management. The article discusses the challenges and ambiguities between performance management and different forms of accountability based on the cases of the reformed welfare administration in Norway and Germany. The findings are that the introduction of performance management creates new accountability structures which influence service delivery, but not necessarily in the direction expected by reform agents. Observed unintended consequences include target fixation, the displacement of political accountability and the predominance of control aspects of accountability.
The fourth article analyzes the accountability implications of the increasingly marketized models of welfare governance. It has often been argued that relocating powers and discretion to private contractors involve a trade-off between democratic accountability and efficiency. However, there is limited empirical evidence of how contracting out shapes accountability or is shaped by alternative democratic or administrative forms of accountability. Along these lines the article examines employment service accountability in the era of contracting out in Germany, Denmark and Great Britain. It is found that market accountability instruments are complementary instruments, not substitutes. The findings highlight the importance of administrative and political instruments in legitimizing marketized service provision and shed light on the processes that lead to the development of a hybrid accountability model.
The fifth and sixth articles focus on the diagonal accountability relationships between public agencies, supreme audit institutions (SAI) and parental ministry or parliament.
The fifth article examines the evolving role of SAIs in Denmark, Germany and Norway focusing particularly on their contribution to public accountability and their ambivalent relationship with some aspects of public sector reform in the welfare sector. The article analyzes how SAIs assess New Public Management inspired reforms in the welfare sector in the three countries. The analysis shows that all three SAIs have taken on an evaluative role when judging New Public Management instruments. At the same time their emphasis on legality and compliance can be at odds with some of the operating principles introduced by New Public Management reforms.
The sixth article focuses on the auditing activities of the German SAI in the field of labor market administration as a single in-depth case study. The purpose is to analyze how SAIs gain impact in diagonal accountability settings. The results show that the direct relationship between auditor and auditee based on cooperation and trust is of outstanding importance for SAIs to give effect to their recommendations. However, if an SAI has to rely on actors of diagonal accountability, it is in a vulnerable position as it might lose control over the interpretation of its results.
Politische Bildung
(2015)
Die Reihe Politische Bildung vermittelt zwischen den vielfältigen Gegenständen des Politischen und der Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Gegenständen in politischen Bildungsprozessen an Schulen, außerschulischen Einrichtungen und Hochschulen. Deshalb werden theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Studien und handlungsanleitende Konzeptionen zur politischen Bildung vorgestellt, um unterschiedliche Zugänge und Sichtweisen zu Theorie und Praxis politischer Bildung aufzuzeigen und zur Diskussion zu stellen. Die Reihe Politische Bildung wendet sich an Studierende, Referendare und Lehrende der schulischen und außerschulischen politischen Bildung.
Polen in Europa
(2015)
Bei unseren östlichen Nachbarn werden derzeit mehrere Jubiläen zelebriert: 25 Jahre politischer Umbruch, 15 Jahre Mitgliedschaft in der NATO und 10 Jahre in der EU. WeltTrends nimmt diese geballte Zahlenmagie zum Anlass, Polen zum Thema zu machen. Heft 100 gewährt einen Einblick in die aktuellen außenpolitischen Diskurse in Polen: Sei es zum Verhältnis zur EU, zu den USA oder zu Russland. Natürlich geht es dabei stets auch um das Verhältnis zu Deutschland und ob die Anfang der 1990er Jahre proklamierte „strategische Interessengemeinschaft“ zu einer tatsächlichen Partnerschaft geworden ist.
Neues Denken in der DDR
(2015)
Das Ende des Kalten Krieges brachte keine Ära des Friedens. Dabei hätte es ermöglicht, der Menschheitsgeschichte eine positive Wendung zu geben. Im „Neuen Denken“ waren deren Umrisse angelegt: Der mit nuklear-strategischen Waffen geführte Krieg hätte die Menschheit vernichtet. Es gibt nur noch gleiche und gemeinsame Sicherheit für alle Seiten oder keine. Im Westen wurde das „Neue Denken“ jedoch als Moment des Scheiterns des Realsozialismus angesehen, nicht als Chance. In diesem Band wird präsentiert, was in der DDR bis 1990 dazu konzeptionell entwickelt wurde.
Nachhaltige Grundsicherung
(2015)
Wie lässt sich Armut weltweit überwinden, ohne dabei auf einen Fortschritt zu setzen, der die Biosphäre überlastet und die Lebensgrundlagen der Menschheit zerstört? Die Autorinnen und Autoren haben im interdisziplinären Gespräch nach Antworten auf diese Frage gesucht und je eigene, teils überraschende Schlussfolgerungen formuliert. Ihren Ansatz nennen sie „Nachhaltige Grundsicherung“. Dabei handelt es sich weniger um ein isoliertes sozialpolitisches Instrument, sondern vielmehr um ein Geflecht von Maßnahmen, die als Grundelemente einer Großen Transformation unserer Produktions-, Konsum- und Lebensweisen und einer Post-2015-Agenda dienen könnten.
Nachhaltige Grundsicherung
(2015)