Politische Bildung übt nicht nur einen großen Einfluss auf die zukünftige Konstellation des politischen Systems aus, sondern beeinflusst ebenfalls das soziale Miteinander prägend. Damit werden entscheidende Weichen für die Entwicklung der Gesellschaft, der Nation und des Staates gestellt. Im Zuge dieses Prozesses durchläuft jeder junge Bürger einen politischen Bildungsweg an Schulen. Die Vorgaben darüber, wie schulische politische Bildung auszusehen hat und welche Kompetenzen Schüler in diesem Zusammenhang erwerben sollen, geben die Kultus- bzw. Bildungsministerien in Curricula vor, verbindlich für alle Lehrer. Durch eine komparative Analyse der Curricula kann damit eindeutig die staatlich vorgegebene politische, gesellschaftliche und soziale Richtung festgestellt werden, die junge Menschen einschlagen sollen. Welche edukativen Ziele der politischen Bildung werden verfolgt? Was sollen Schüler lernen, um mit diesen Kompetenzen die Zukunft ihres Kollektivs zu gestalten? Wo liegen die Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zweier Staaten, in unserem Fall Deutschlands und Polens, im Hinblick auf die schulische politische Bildung? Beantwortet werden diese Fragestellungen durch das Anwenden zweier Methoden der qualitativen Sozialforschung, der komparativen Inhaltsanalyse, zum einen der strukturierenden zum anderen der induktiven. Davor erfolgt eine komparativ quantitative Untersuchung, die den Umfang der Unterrichtszeit in den Leitfächern für politische Bildung in allen Bundesländern und in Polen vergleicht, was einer empirischen Totalerhebung der komplex umfangreichen Daten entspricht. Die quantitativen Forschungsergebnisse zeigen deutliche Differenzen zwischen Deutschland und Polen, in einem der beiden Staaten wird signifikant mehr Zeit für politische Bildung im Leitfach dieser Disziplin investiert als im anderen. Anhand der qualitativen Daten ist zu erkennen, dass einerseits eine gemeinsame Grundbasis von Kompetenzen der politischen Bildung zwischen Deutschland und Polen besteht. Anderseits stechen in beiden Ländern eindeutige Unterschiede hervor, deren Ursprung zum einen historische Erfahrungen der Nationen und Staaten abbildet, zum anderen aktuell gegensätzliche politische Interessen untermauert.

No abstract available.

Current crises have highlighted the importance of integrating research, politics and practice to work on solutions for complex social problems. In recent years, policy deliberation fora, policy pilots and policy labs have increasingly been deployed to mobilise science to produce solutions, help create popular support and guide implementation of policies addressing major public policy problems. Yet, we know little about how these approaches manage to transcend the boundaries between research, politics and practice. By systematically comparing policy deliberation fora, policy pilots and policy labs, this paper explores their mechanisms of boundary spanning including relationship and trust building, knowledge translation and developing solutions. We situate our analysis in healthcare policy and climate change policy in Germany, two contrasting policy fields that share a perpetual and escalating sense of crisis. Our findings suggest that deliberation fora, policy pilots and policy labs address different dilemmas of policymaking, namely the idea dilemma, the implementation dilemma and the legitimacy dilemma. All three approaches reduce wicked problems to a manageable scale, by grounding them in local decision-making, reducing their scope or reducing the problem analytically. We argue that despite their ambition to modernise democratic practices, unless they are institutionally well embedded, their effects are likely to be small scale, local and temporary.

Under conditions of weak statehood, societal actors are supposed to assume functions usually attributed to the state. Social self-organization is expected to emerge when the state leaves important social problems unattended. Should social self-organization, therefore, be regarded as a reaction to state weakness and as compensation for state failure in the provision of basic services? Does society organize itself on its own in areas where the state is absent or ineffective? By the example of two Latin American social movements, this article aims to show that social self-organization—at least on a larger scale—is not independent of the state, but rather a result of a dynamic interaction with the state. The two examples this article explores are the middle-class Venezuelan neighborhood movement and the Argentine piquetero movement of unemployed workers. Both movements emerged as reactions to the state’s failure and retreat from essential social functions and both developed into extensive and influential social actors. For that reason, they can be regarded as crucial cases for observing the patterns and conditions of social self-organization and autonomous collective action within the specific Latin American context. Despite their different backgrounds and social bases, the two cases reveal remarkable similarities. They show that the emergence and development of self-organized social groups cannot be conceived simply as a reaction to state weakness, but rather should be viewed as a dynamic interaction with the state.

For decades autonomy has been utilised as a concept in various social sciences, like sociology, political science, law and philosophy. Certain concepts of autonomy have always reflected the needs of the respective disciplines that made use of the term, but also ever infringed on the interpretation of autonomy in other disciplines. Most notably, conceptualisations of international and constitutional law have found their way into bordering sciences, like political science. The result: a legal positivist view prevailing in the conceptualisations of autonomy within political and administrative sciences. As this working paper points out, this perspective does not do justice to the complex phenomenon autonomy is or may be in social and political reality. Hence, the paper argues for a differentiated concept of autonomy, splitting it into autonomy claims, actors, process, rights and powers, regimes, and their institutions. The empirical world suggests a salience of formally and informally lived types of autonomy, especially in Latin America, due to the region’s indigenous population often living outside of, or within the limited reach of the state. Therefore, the paper aims to incorporate the dimension of informality – lacking in previous legal positivist approaches. Autonomy regimes could be entrenched in international, constitutional, or secondary law, or they could be tolerated by the state or seized by autonomy claimants by force. From a theoretical or conceptual perspective, the dimension of (in)formality facilitates the incorporation of autonomy into the discussion on governance and government, mostly on the local or regional level. Thus, the paper establishes autonomy regimes as a concept located at the verges of (self-)government and (self-)governance.