Refine
Document Type
- Article (15)
- Doctoral Thesis (7)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (24)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (24)
Keywords
- - (6)
- Parties (3)
- women (3)
- Bürgerkrieg (2)
- Ideologie (2)
- Partei (2)
- gender (2)
- partisan theory (2)
- populism (2)
- ASEAN (1)
Institute
- Institut für Politik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (24) (remove)
Publisher
- SAGE Publications (5)
- Cambridge University Press (2)
- Springer Nature (2)
- Wiley (2)
- De Gruyter (1)
- MDPI (1)
- Nomos (1)
- Peter Lang (1)
- Routledge (1)
Many intrastate conflicts see more than one mediation effort. As the sequencing of mediation efforts in intrastate conflicts is neglected in existing research, this project addresses the question how and why previous mediation outcomes have an impact on subsequent mediation onset and subsequent mediation success. Drawing on bargaining theory, it is argued that governments and rebel groups engaged in intrastate conflicts account for previous mediation outcomes in their cost-benefit calculations on subsequent mediation onset, and, should subsequent talks set on, their behaviour during subsequent mediation efforts, which influences subsequent mediation success.
If mediation did not produce an agreement, the persistence of the private information problem is noted by the conflict parties. Yet, no new costs of mediation are uncovered, and hence the conflict parties will agree to subsequent mediation onset. Being aware of the necessity to overcome the private information and the commitment problem, the mediator will seek to account for the concerns of the conflict parties, and thereby work towards subsequent mediation success. If mediation produced a partial agreement, the benefits of mediation are underlined. The private information and the commitment problem seem solved with the assistance of the mediator. Subsequent mediation onset and eventually subsequent mediation success are observed. If a mediated agreement was reneged on by the rebel group, the government will refrain from further talks, pointing out the rebel group’s illegitimacy. If the government reneged on the agreement itself, it will also decide against subsequent mediation, as the previous mediation effort produced an agreement which did not mirror the power distribution in the dyad. Costs of mediation, which outweigh the benefits of it, were highlighted. Rebel groups will opt for mediation regardless which side reneged on an agreement. As both governments and rebel groups have to agree to subsequent mediation for talks to set on, subsequent mediation onset is unlikely if a mediated agreement was reneged on. Given the onset of subsequent mediation after a mediated agreement was reneged on, subsequent mediation success is unlikely to be observed, due to the previously underlined hazards of sharing private information and the persistence of the commitment problem.
The theoretical argument is tested with a mixed-methods approach. The quantitative analysis accounts for mediation efforts in African intrastate conflicts between 1993 and 2007. The qualitative analysis scrutinises the mediation efforts between the Government of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army. The results of both parts of analysis largely go hand-in-hand, and show that partial mediation success and mediation which did not produce an agreement have a positive impact on subsequent mediation onset in particular, but also on subsequent mediation success. Reneged on mediated agreements have a severe negative impact on subsequent mediation onset and subsequent mediation success though.
By addressing the question which impact previous mediation outcomes have on subsequent mediation efforts, this research shows that mediation which does not produce an agreement is not the mediation outcome which needs to be feared by the international community. Instead, the deteriorating impact of short-lived agreements, a mediation outcome which is unaccounted for in existing research as an explanatory variable, becomes apparent. This research has important policy implications, especially for mediators, as it suggests that accepting mediation efforts to end without an agreement is more conducive for subsequent mediation efforts. Moreover, this research points towards the necessity of including reneged on agreements in mediation research as an explanatory variable more extensively, thereby shedding more light onto the dynamics at play in consecutive mediation efforts.
This article is the first to show that gender shapes the degree to which legislators use formal mechanisms to oversee government activities. Extensive scholarly work has analysed the use of oversight instruments, especially regarding who monitors whom. Whether, how, and why the conformity of men and women with institutional roles differs, has not yet received scholarly attention. We hypothesise that women become more active than men in overseeing the executive when in opposition while reducing their monitoring activities even more strongly than men when in government because of different social roles ascribed to men and women as well as differences in risk aversity between sexes. We analyse panel data for three oversight tools from the German Bundestag between 1949 and 2013 to test this proposition. Our findings imply that characteristics of political actors influence even a strongly institutionalised process as oversight and further clarify the gender bias in political representation.
Extensive scholarly work engages with the growing number of women in legislatures around the world and highlights their role as advocates of women’s interests during parliamentary decision-making processes. This article sheds light on the reactions of men MPs (members of parliament) to this trend by uncovering how women's numerical strength in party parliamentary groups shapes the issues that their men colleagues emphasize when speaking about women during plenary debates. I argue that, the higher the share of women in a party parliamentary group, the more will men representatives emphasize women’s interests in the context of issues they can easily relate to—either because the issues lie in men’s area of responsibility according to ideas about traditional role distributions in the society, for example, the financing of gender equality projects, or because they are part of broader patterns of societal inequality, such as poverty or health. I provide empirical evidence for this argument based on original time-series cross-sectional data from plenary debates in six German states between 2005 and 2021 using a structural topic model. These findings shed light on men’s role as critical actors and have implications for gender equality and the functioning of representative democracy more broadly.
To what extent do norms of regional Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) have an impact on member states’ borders and their permeability? International agreements and regional integration measures quite often highlight how harmonization of mechanisms and procedures related to cross-border interaction within specific communities takes place. As these agreements and measures contain mutual expectations about appropriate behavior, a form of convergence in bordering practices – and therefore effects – is implied. This leads to the assumption that cross-border interaction is gradually increasing and eventually leading to a ‘borderless’ realm that allows for the free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital. However, the nature of borders or a deeper understanding of the bordering process itself is often not central to the studies of international relations. They represent mere fixtures of international interaction and appear in the public discussion only if sudden restrictions are implemented or if large-scale changes in the international environment affect their functioning.
Specific literature on borders is relatively new and located mainly within an interdisciplinary setting that largely lacks coherency in its ontological concepts or deals exclusively with individual cases. The literature on the normative capacity of (regional) IGOs on the other hand is well matured and one of the cornerstones of international studies. However, here a blatant neglect of borders and bordering is apparent. This situation is aggravated by the circumstance that the field of International Relations by definition is dealing with cross-border interaction.
Apart from the general ontological issue of what borders and bordering processes are from a political science perspective, three main gaps in conjunction with the above question could be identified within the literature. The first relates to the general efficacy of the normative influence of regional IGOs on enhancing cross-border interaction through the issuing of specific normative provisions. On this, the relevant literature is divided. Arguments range from an all-permeating relevance of norms as intersubjective understandings that create specific expectations of appropriate behavior to the primacy of rational choices that are targeted to create benefits in most economic and security- related matters. The second gap relates to the relevance of domestic precognition in cross-border interaction. It is not clear to what extent dominant normative conceptions at the national level create obstacles to the efficacy of IGO provisions in shaping cross- border interaction. Finally, the impact of critical junctures – as kind of catalysts – that shift member state preferences in following communal obligations are being analyzed. Here, the assumption is that these junctures may either enhance or negate IGO provisions dependent on the dominant domestic preferences. Essentially, the approach taken here is a layered one, where each identified gap provides the basis for the following ones. The analysis itself is divided into a quantitative and a qualitative part. For the former, a new dataset has been created that specifically lists all normative provisions targeting the free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital of the two IGOs selected for this research project. This is an important departure from the usual dichotomous perception of IGO influence used throughout the literature. In conjunction with specific data related to each of the four freedoms, multiple variations of a gravimetric Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood model are specified. The qualitative approach draws upon descriptive and matching approaches to analyze the impact of dominant domestic norms and critical junctures on the bordering process. For this purpose, a corpus of source material is created that includes government declarations and media articles, as well as the specific IGO provisions on bordering to each of the four freedoms that are central to this research.
The quantitative findings indicate a strong and consistently positive impact of regulative IGO norms while evaluative IGO norms do not provide similar results. The qualitative findings point in a similar direction. As long as IGO norms have a more regulative direction and are obligatory, the effect is less likely to be diminished by contesting dominant domestic norms or critical junctures vis-`a-vis more evaluative IGO norms.
The results and additional findings of this research have implications for further research. Central to this is the capacity of regional IGOs to exert normative influence on the bordering practices of their member states. An additional finding relates to the interrelatedness of normative provisions. The more these provisions are cross-referencing each other – or are interlocked – the more robust they seem to get. This is a trait that is relevant for policy-makers and IGO bureaucracies if they want to enhance the compliance of their agents. On a methodological level, the here introduced data set on normative IGO provisions provides other researchers with a substantially more fine- grained approach to investigating the impact of specific IGO measures on a particular dimension of cross-border interaction.
The substance of procedures
(2021)
In Democracy without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont identifies proceduralist or ‘deep pluralist’ conceptions of democracy alongside epistemic and lottocratic approaches as shortcuts that avoid the more challenging but, in her view, preferable path of engaging with and attempting to sway competing views, values and beliefs of fellow citizens. I argue that with the wholesale dismissal of proceduralist accounts of democracy Lafont herself takes two shortcuts: The first concerns the characterization of deep pluralism as unable to explain substantive disagreement after a decision is settled, and the second undervalues proceduralism’s ability to evaluate and criticize the substance of the political decision-making process. While her critique is fitting for minimalist conceptions of proceduralism, a theory of normative proceduralism shares many objectives with Lafont’s vision of a participatory deliberative democracy. Integrating those approaches instead of dismissing proceduralism outright would render her project appealing to theorists who would not otherwise consider themselves deliberative democrats.
Can established parties influence the electoral success of new parties? To answer this research question, the author examined the relationships of 168 new parties in 18 highly developed democracies with their established competitors based on their respective election programmes and election results. His analysis of the textual similarity of these election manifestos shows that established parties can influence their competitors' election results by selectively changing the emphasis of their policies. However, competition among the parties must also be taken into account. This study thus contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics of party competition and the opportunities offered by computer-assisted textual analysis in the social sciences.
Participating in an election is by far the most prevalent form of political participation in modern democracies. Turnout rates, however, not only vary considerably between countries but also over time: By trend, in many Western democracies turnout levels have declined over the last decades. Electoral systems depict a prominent factor that has always been discussed with respect to its impact on turnout. In this respect, a high number of empirical studies found aggregate turnout predominantly to be higher in countries using proportional representation compared to countries using a less proportional electoral system. Based on these findings, one should expect turnout to increase when the electoral system changes towards higher proportionality. However, empirical evidence of the actual lasting impact of changes in electoral institutions on voter turnout is all but conclusive. In this dissertation, I aim at answering the following question: What are the consequences of electoral system change for voter turnout? I argue that it is necessary to examine the relationship between electoral systems and turnout more detailed as most studies did to date by taking the level of electoral constituencies and the temporal dimension of electoral system change into account.
To assess the impact of electoral systems and further proposed causal factors associated with electoral systems, party system size for instance, on turnout empirically, I make use of a comparative research design, analyzing longitudinal data with time-series cross-sectional regression models. These data, being the basis for my empirical analyses, represent a unique data set covering 9.639 electoral districts from 146 national legislative elections in eleven European countries. The dissertation generally finds an increasing district magnitude to boost turnout, while a decreasing magnitude has negative consequences for electoral participation. The positive effect of district magnitude on turnout seems to depend on the size of the population in the respective district, however. In addition, the analyses show that a higher number of parties in a district, respectively an increase in the number of parties in a district, has a negative impact on turnout.
The extent to which the left–right dimension still structures party systems in highly developed, industrialized democracies is a contested field in comparative politics. Most studies in this area take the position that a stable and universal left–right dimension is either still the most important game in town or has become obsolete and replaced by other policy dimensions. Although country-specific studies focusing on voters’ left–right self-placement discover different meanings of left and right that vary between countries and change over time, few macro-comparative studies focusing on parties or governments take this aspect into account. Using a left–right concept for party politics from the PIP project on Parties, Institutions and Preferences that distinguishes an ideological core derived from political theory, as well as country- and time-specific issues uncovered through empirical analysis, the article demonstrates fundamental differences in the relevance and meaning of left and right by analyzing 34 party systems from 1945 to 2020. The article shows that the thesis of the decline of the left and right is premature. An important aspect for the continued high relevance of the left–right dimension is the fact that left and right changes their meaning by including controversial issues such as European integration, migration and environmental degradation.
Many democracies are witnessing the rise and continuing success of parties and politicians who oppose fundamental principles of liberal democracy. Recent research finds that voters support illiberal politicians, because they trade off policy congruence against attitudes toward liberal democracy. Other studies, however, suggest that authoritarian and populist voters might actually have a preference to vote for illiberal candidates. We argue that both factors interact: Authoritarian and populist voters are more willing to trade off policy representation against support for liberal democracy. To test this mechanism, we rely on a survey experiment conducted in Germany. The results clearly demonstrate that voters indeed trade off policy congruence against liberal democracy. Moreover, this effect is particularly strong for populist and authoritarian voters. Overall, the results have important implications for understanding when and which voters support or oppose liberal democracy.
We use the Bertelsmann Foundation's Sustainable Government Indicators (SGI) to find out how executive efficiency and consensus capacity influence sustainable policy performance. Although those two concepts are often seen as opposites, we show that this is not the case and that they can actually complement each other: separately as well as together, an efficient executive and consensus capacity support more sustainable policy performance. However, government efficiency is a double-edged sword. Depending on the policy positions governments take, outcomes vary. In this respect, efficient government structures are an amplifier of policy outcomes. In the case of sustainable policy performance, left-leaning governments increase sustainable policy performance, while right-leaning governments do not.