Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (25)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (12)
- Working Paper (11)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (25) (remove)
Keywords
- Selbstorganisation (3)
- Staat (3)
- democracy (3)
- doctoral graduates (3)
- quality of democracy (3)
- Begrenzte Staatlichkeit (2)
- Germany (2)
- Promotion (2)
- Vergleichende politische Wissenschaft (2)
- law (2)
Institute
- Institut für Politikwissenschaft und Soziologie (25) (remove)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
- DFG Forschungsgruppe 2757 / Lokale Selbstregelungen im Kontext schwacher Staatlichkeit in Antike und Moderne (LoSAM) (2)
- Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (1)
- Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (1)
- University of Applied Sciences Potsdam (1)
- University of Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil (1)
- Universität Bayreuth (1)
- Universität Leipzig (1)
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).
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.
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.
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 Würz-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.
Although Lijphart's typology of consensus and majoritarian democracy can be regarded as the most widely used tool to classify democratic regimes, it has been rarely applied to Latin America so far. We try to fill this gap by adapting Lijphart's typological framework to the Latin American context in the following way. In contrast to previous studies, we treat the type of democracy as an independent variable and include informal factors such as clientelism or informal employment in our assessment of democratic patterns. On this basis, we aim to answer the following questions. First, how did the patterns of democracy evolve in Latin America over the two decades between 1990 and 2010 and what kind of differences can be observed in the region? Second, what are the institutional determinants of the observed changes? We focus on the emergence of new parties because of their strong impact on the first dimension of Lijphart's typology. From our observations we draw the following tentative conclusions: If strong new parties established themselves in the party system but failed to gain the presidency, they pushed the system towards consensualism. Conversely, new parties that gained the presidency produced more majoritarian traits.
The refugee crisis has developed as one of the major challenges for EU governance in recent years. From 2013 onwards, the crisis determined the political agenda and public discourse within European politics. During that time, the numbers of asylum seekers reaching Europe increased dramatically, with more than one million people applying for asylum at the crisis peak in 2015. This paper deals with the efforts taken by the EU and its member states to mitigate and overcome the refugee crisis. How exactly has the EU reacted to the refugee crisis and how and to what extend have the EU and its governance changed throughout the crisis? These research questions are approached through a reconstructive analysis of the whole period of crisis. This approach provides for a comprehensive examination of the refugee crisis that includes all issues, measures and processes of the EU’s policy reaction at the same time.
It will be argued that due to severe shortcomings of the Dublin regulation and the Common European Asylum System, a crisis in the EU’s refugee policy was already predestined. This was the case from 2013 onwards. The EU approached the crisis in three stages – neglect and non-solidarity leading to unilateral approaches by affected states, supranational short-term emergency measures during the peak of crisis and enhanced cooperation with third countries, especially with Turkey, the Western Balkans states and African states – until the crisis lost traction in 2017. Yet, the asylum system’s shortcomings are still not eliminated as the lasting measures of the EU’s crisis management between 2013 and 2018 mainly focused on border security and externalisation. EU governance changed towards more intergovernmental, informal and regional action. Further, the crisis led to serious rows between member states, leading to the fragmentation of the EU into two blocs. With decreasing numbers of asylum seeker in the last few years, what remains is an incomplete asylum system and a political crisis among member states.
This review article deals with the topic of sustainability in the German healthcare system and presents an overview of how the six articles of our research relate to one another. After introducing to the context of the research, its internal principles, and the methods applied, three perspectives are presented, each also discussed in terms of the respective literature in sustainability science and political science. The review concludes by presenting a circular model and by discussing the general limitations as well as the practical implications of our research.
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.
This study examines types of democracies that result from trade-offs within the democratic quality. Recently, the existence and relevance of trade-offs has been widely discussed. The idea is that the functions associated with the quality of democracy cannot all be maximized simultaneously. Thus, trade-offs are expressed in distinct profiles of democracy. Different profiles of democracy favour certain democracy dimensions over others due to their institutional design. Conceptually, we differentiate between four different democracy profiles: a libertarian-majoritarian (high political freedom, lower political equality, and lower political and legal control values), an egalitarian-majoritarian (high equality combined with lower freedom and control values), as well as two control-focused democracy profiles (high control values either with high degrees of freedom or high degrees of equality). We apply a cluster analysis with a focus on cluster validation on the Democracy Matrix dataset—a customized version of the Varieties-of-Democracy dataset. To increase the robustness of the cluster results, this study uses several different cluster algorithms, multiple fit indices as well as data resampling techniques. Based on all democracies between 1900 and 2017, we find strong empirical evidence for these democracy profiles. Finally, we discuss the temporal development and spatial distribution of the democracy profiles globally across the three waves of democracy, as well as for individual countries.
The investigation of trade-offs in political science receives only limited attention, although many scholars acknowledge the importance of trade-offs across a variety of different areas. A systematic and comprehensive examination of the topic is missing. This thematic issue of Politics and Governance sheds light on this research deficit by providing a holistic but also an integrative view on trade-offs in the political realm for the first time. Researchers of trade-offs from different political areas present and discuss their findings, and promote a fruitful exchange, which overcomes the current isolation of the approaches. They consider the theoretical and methodological questions as well as the identification of empirical tradeoffs. Furthermore, they provide insights into the possibility to balance trade-offs and strategies, which could help actors to find such compromises.