@article{LauthSchlenkrich2018,
  author    = {Lauth, Hans-Joachim and Schlenkrich, Oliver},
  title     = {Making Trade-Offs Visible: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations about the Relationship between Dimensions and Institutions of Democracy and Empirical Findings},
  series = {Politics and Governance},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Politics and Governance},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.17645/pag.v6i1.1200},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-159588},
  pages     = {78-91},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Whereas the measurement of the quality of democracy focused on the rough differentiation of democracies and autocracies in the beginning (e.g. Vanhanen, Polity, Freedom House), the focal point of newer instruments is the assessment of the quality of established democracies. In this context, tensions resp. trade-offs between dimensions of democracy are discussed as well (e.g. Democracy Barometer, Varieties of Democracy). However, these approaches lack a systematic discussion of trade-offs and they are not able to show trade-offs empirically. We address this research desideratum in a three-step process: Firstly, we propose a new conceptual approach, which distinguishes between two different modes of relationships between dimensions: mutual reinforcing effects and a give-and-take relationship (trade-offs) between dimensions. By introducing our measurement tool, Democracy Matrix, we finally locate mutually reinforcing effects as well as trade-offs. Secondly, we provide a new methodological approach to measure trade-offs. While one measuring strategy captures the mutual reinforcing effects, the other strategy employs indicators, which serve to gauge trade-offs. Thirdly, we demonstrate empirical findings of our measurement drawing on the Varieties of Democracy dataset. Incorporating trade-offs into the measurement enables us to identify various profiles of democracy (libertarian, egalitarian and control-focused democracy) via the quality of its dimensions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{MuellerBrandeckBocquetGiegLowingeretal.2015,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {M{\"u}ller-Brandeck-Bocquet, Gisela and Gieg, Philipp and Lowinger, Timo and Gs{\"a}nger, Matthias and Becker, Michael and Kundu, Amitabh and Valerian, Rodrigues and S, Shaji and Sch{\"o}mbucher-Kusterer, Elisabeth and Biswas, Aparajita},
  title     = {Exploring Emerging India - Eight Essays},
  editor    = {M{\"u}ller-Brandeck-Bocquet, Gisela and Gieg, Philipp and Lowinger, Timo},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-11997},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-119973},
  pages     = {58},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {India's economic rise since the 1990s has been followed by a more prominent global role for the country. Despite economic setbacks in recent years and huge domestic challenges like poverty, caste issues, and gender inequality, India today is almost universally characterised as an "emerging power". At the same time, the country continues to show an enormous diversity. Thus, exploring emerging India can surely not be confined to economic analysis only. Instead, it is vital to take current developments in domestic and international politics, society, culture, religion, and political thinking into consideration as well. Following an interdisciplinary approach, contributions from Political Science, International Relations, Indology, Political Theory, and Economics are fundamental in order to grasp the country's diversity. This collection assembles eight essays which, individually, serve as working papers reflecting the authors' various research focuses, while collectively composing a multifaceted and multidis-ciplinary picture of emerging India. It thereby reflects the approach the University of W{\"u}rz-burg's Centre for Modern India and the Institute for Political Science and Sociology's India Forum are committed to: bringing together different academic disciplines in order to generate nuanced insights into India's manifold diversity.},
  subject      = {Indien / Government},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Lauth2015,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Lauth, Hans-Joachim},
  title     = {The Matrix of Democracy: A Three-Dimensional Approach to Measuring the Quality of Democracy and Regime Transformations},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-10966},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-109665},
  pages     = {29},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {The article presents a proposal for the assessment of the quality of democracy. After elaborating on the methodological strategy, a definition of democracy is proposed, which entails the construction of the matrix of democracy based on three dimensions (political freedom, political equality, and political and judicial control) and five institutions. The methodological application of this measuring tool is then explained. This conception guarantees an appropriate measurement in different cultural contexts, enables the characterization of democratic profiles, and allows for the identification of deficiencies in democracies. Before the conclusion, three examples of the measurement (USA, Russia, and Italy) illustrate how the matrix works.},
  subject      = {Vergleichende politische Wissenschaft},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Rodrigues2014,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Rodrigues, Valerian},
  title     = {Elections and Civil Society in India},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-10500},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-105007},
  pages     = {40},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The analysis of the 2014 elections to Lok Sabha in India describes the results and their enormous extent with a differentiate regard to social group voting. Considering the election campaign's performativity and issues of contestation the landslide victory of BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) will be illuminated. Through a closer examination of party coalitions, the electoral system, and the leadership factor the BJP's clear victory over Congress Party will be explained. Besides the opportunity for significant economic and political reforms, the author conjectures a potential for dangerous tendencies to Indian democracy owing to such a resourceful government, which are compared with the government constraints, especially by federal arrangements. The second part of the article argues that civil society in India is composed of several layers that are distinct and overlap at the same time. Five versions of the same are significant: 1) institutions avowing secular nationalism that upholds inclusive citizenship, equality of treatment, and non-discrimination; 2) a phalanx of institutions inspired by the Gandhian idea of swaraj that are deeply vary of the state and its apparatus and envisage a life of freedom constituted around self-determining associations built from below; 3) such orientations and impulses which stress on religiously inspired values and traditions with its archetypal representation in Hindu nationalism; 4) those who highlight difference and diversity as central to Indian society and stress this fact as foundational to Indian nationalism; 5) and those who are in favour of a right-based approach to citizenship and rule of law in India. Alluding to these distinctive domains constitutive of civil society in India the paper argues that the success of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and the coalition that it led, in the General elections of 2014 rested on its ability in tapping resources from different layers of civil society while making institutions woven around Hindu identity as its anchor.},
  subject      = {Indien <Parliament>},
  language  = {en}
}
@inproceedings{Scheuermann2011,
  author    = {Scheuermann, Manuela},
  title     = {Effective or multilateral? The UN-EU partnership in military crisis management},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-65565},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {For the EU "effective multilateralism" in, with and within international organisations is the foundation of a system of global governance, so is laid down in the ESS. Therefore the term is used to label the EU's activities in the UN-family and to characterise the relations with the UN in the wider context of global governance. It is the political argument for the EU's commitment in military crisis management, side by side with UN peacekeepers. The UN in turn speaks of multilateralism to call for the EU's loyalty and partnership. Both organisations build their partnership on the common normative ground of multilateralism. The paper questions these rhetorical denominations critically. It goes beyond the political declarations to analyse the degree and quality of "effective multilateralism" in reality in and with international organisations, using the example of UN-EU-relations in military crisis management. The theoretical approach of multilateralism serves as the starting point of the analysis and theoretical basis of the paper (Chapter 1). The special EU-touch in "effective multilateralism" in comparison to the "UN-touch" is subject of Chapter 2. This analysis is necessary due to the meanwhile inflationary use of the term "effective multilateralism" in almost every CSFP context. Are the institutional steps to a partnership in crisis management as well as the operational collaboration in DR Congo (2003/2006/2009) and Chad/CAR (2008/2009) in line with "multilateralism"? is the question that is answered in the paper (Chapter 3).},
  subject      = {Friedenssicherung},
  language  = {en}
}