Subjects -> POLITICAL SCIENCE (Total: 1214 journals)
    - CIVIL RIGHTS (16 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (153 journals)
    - POLITICAL SCIENCE (1010 journals)
    - POLITICAL SCIENCES: GENERAL (35 journals)

POLITICAL SCIENCE (1010 journals)

We no longer collect new content from this publisher because the publisher has forbidden systematic access to its RSS feeds.
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.298
Citation Impact (citeScore): 1
Number of Followers: 19  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 1865-2646 - ISSN (Online) 1865-2654
Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2656 journals]
  • „Seit Köln“, und „nach Chemnitz“ – Schlüsselereignisse im
           parlamentarischen Diskurs
    • Abstract: Zusammenfassung Die Kölner Silvesternacht 2015/2016 und die Vorfälle in Chemnitz 2018 sind Schlüsselereignisse der jüngeren deutschen Geschichte, die eng mit den Konflikten in der Migrations- und Integrationspolitik verbunden sind. Wir untersuchen die diskursive Verarbeitung dieser Ereignisse in den Landtagen. Dazu verbinden wir qualitative und quantitative Verfahren der Textanalyse und werten einen umfangreichen Korpus aller Plenardebatten aus, die seit den Silvesterereignissen in Köln stattfanden. Unsere quantitative Textanalyse zeigt, dass Köln und Chemnitz fortwährend im parlamentarischen Diskurs nachhallen. Mit einer Framing-Analyse identifizieren wir die Deutungsmuster der Parteien. Wir stellen fest, dass die Kölner Silvesternacht die bekannten parteipolitischen Deutungsmuster im parlamentarischen Diskurs zwar herausfordert nicht jedoch grundlegend verändert. Dagegen macht Chemnitz 2018 neue parteipolitische Interpretationsangebote, sowie eine zunehmende Polarisierung zwischen AfD und etablierten Parteien sichtbar.
      PubDate: 2021-05-04
       
  • Decline of democracy—the European Union at a crossroad
    • Abstract: Although EU member states have committed themselves to upholding the fundamental democratic values enshrined in Article 2 Treaty on European Union, violations of these values could be observed in some member states—first and foremost in Hungary and Poland. This article studies whether these negative developments, which are often summarized under the terms backsliding or erosion of democracy, should be classified as a loss in the quality of democracy or even as a decline of democracy. By drawing on Gero Erdmann’s (2011) theoretical definition of decline of democracy and using Democracy Barometer data for the period between 2004 and 2016, this form of loss of the quality of democracy is analysed for the 28 EU member states. In addition, the EU’s role in safeguarding democracy in its member states is discussed. The article shows that it is not only the new EU members that show a decline of democracy more frequently, but the old EU members. The EU as guardian of the democratic fundamental values is failing to live up to its role despite the numerous instruments it has at its disposal.
      PubDate: 2021-04-30
       
  • Neues vom Grand Hotel Abgrund. Der Paradigmenwechsel vom Kosmopolitismus
           zur Kosmo-Politik
    • Abstract: Zusammenfassung Die altehrwürdige, stets bestrittene und leicht angegraut wirkende Tradition des Weltbürgertums (Kosmopolitismus) steht (I) vor drei neuen Herausforderungen: (a) postkolonial, insofern die westlichen Ursprünge universaler Ideen auf der Hand liegen und daraus eventuell Verengungen und Einseitigkeiten folgen, (b) als Eliten-Projekt, das die breite Bevölkerung nie erreicht hat bzw. diese ignoriert, gepaart (c) mit Einwänden von kommunitaristischer Seite, wonach alle Vorstellungen von Zugehörigkeit, Solidarität und Hospitalität in lokalen Gemeinschaften geerdet sein müssen. Die Idee des Kosmopolitismus kann sich diesen Herausforderungen stellen, wenn sie (II) stärker implementiert und operationalisiert wird: Dazu tragen Ansätze eines „globalen Konstitutionalismus“ bei, der über den Nationalstaat als überkommener Stütze von Regierung und kollektiver Identität hinausreicht und Problemlagen angeht, die diesen Souveränitäts- und Identitätsrahmen gesprengt haben. Im Zeitalter des Anthropozän (III) ist eine Erweiterung des Kosmopolitismus angebracht, nämlich die überfällige Einbeziehung der belebten und unbelebten Natur als einem virtuellen Mit-Akteur internationaler Beziehungen. Diese konzeptionelle und operative Revision kosmopolitischer Ideen mündet in eine übergreifend planetare „Kosmo-Politik“.
      PubDate: 2021-04-16
       
  • „Dysfunktionale Demokratie(n): Merkmale, Ursachen und Folgen“.
           Digitale Jahrestagung des AK Demokratieforschung der DVPW am 11. März
           2021
    • PubDate: 2021-04-14
       
  • Meanings of democracy: mapping lay perceptions on scholarly norms
    • Abstract: I am grateful for the honor to write this comment because it gave me the opportunity to read this truly exquisite compilation of works collected under the editorship of Osterberg-Kaufmann, Stark and Mohamad-Klotzbach. The focus of the special section is on new frontiers in the empirical investigation of citizens’ subjective understandings of democracy. It is a methodologically and phenomenologically diverse, and yet thematically cohesive, assemblage of studies that comes at due time and in which the various pieces indeed speak to each other. The compendium covers a significant portion of the innovations going on in the field of measuring lay perceptions of democracy across cultures. To me, the key point is how lay perceptions of democracy map on scholarly norms and where and why mismatches between lay perceptions and scholarly norms exist and what the implications of such mismatches are in terms of global regime-culture coevolution. My comments to the individual articles in the special issue are framed within this broader question. I am phrasing my reflections in a more brainstorming manner, rather than systematically going through each contribution in a point-by-point style. For this reason, my discussion will not address each contribution equally but rather in terms of what I feel should loom large on our research agenda. In a nutshell, I am advocating a decidedly cultural theory of autocracy-vs-democracy—cultural in the sense that we need to triangulate people’s support for and their notions of democracy in the context of encultured values.
      PubDate: 2021-03-12
       
  • Yves Sintomer, 2016. Das demokratische Experiment. Geschichte des
           Losverfahrens in der Politik von Athen bis heute
    • PubDate: 2021-03-12
       
  • Friend or foe' —comparing party reactions to Fridays for Future in
           a party system polarised between AfD and Green Party
    • Abstract: Fridays for Future has risen as a new environmental movement pushing politicians to take action against climate change. However, its interaction with other political actors, most importantly political parties, has hardly been addressed systematically by scientific research. In this article, we take stock of party reactions to the movement on the national and subnational level in Germany. Furthermore, we investigate possible explanations for variances in these reactions in a comparison of subnational party organisations and thereby, focus on dynamics of party competition, especially on the impact of the Green Party as established contender and of the populist radical right AfD and its new role in environmental politics. We show that party reactions to the movement vary widely reflecting a clear divide on the left-right-spectrum. While centre-left parties, particularly the Green Party, support the movement, centre-right parties are utmost cautious and the populist radical right AfD stands out with a blatantly hostile attitude. Though indications for the impact of party competition dynamics were minor, we observed a strong polarisation on the climate issue that may take effect in the near future.
      PubDate: 2021-03-11
       
  • Andreas Grimmel, Hrsg. 2020. Die neue Europäische Union. Zwischen
           Integration und Desintegration
    • PubDate: 2021-02-17
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-021-00475-8
       
  • Die Migrationspolitik der deutschen Länder
    • Abstract: Zusammenfassung Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht, (1) inwieweit Unterschiede in der Ausgestaltung der Migrationspolitik auf substaatlicher Ebene in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland bestehen und (2) wodurch sich die Policy-Varianz zwischen den deutschen Ländern erklären lässt. Während bestehende Studien ähnlich gelagerte Fragen meist nur auf Basis eines spezifischen Indikators der Migrationspolitik untersucht haben – wie etwa der Ausgaben – schlagen wir ein mehrdimensionales Messkonzept vor, das sechs unterschiedliche Dimensionen der Migrationspolitik auf Länderebene unterscheidet: (1) die Art der Unterbringung, (2) die Art der Leistungserbringung, (3) die Gesundheitsversorgung, (4) die Aufnahmepraxis, (5) die Abschiebepraxis, sowie die (6) bundesstaatliche Positionierung am Beispiel der „sicheren Herkunftsländer“. Zur Analyse möglicher Pfade zur Erklärung der Unterschiede zwischen den Bundesländern nutzen wir eine fuzzy-set QCA-Analyse und greifen auf Parteipolitik, sozioökonomischen Kontext und die Einstellungen der Bevölkerung als Bedingungen zurück. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass in der Tat substanzielle Unterschiede zwischen den Bundesländern bestehen. Zudem finden wir, dass die parteipolitische Zusammensetzung der Regierung in unterschiedlichen Pfaden eine wichtige Bedingung für das Vorliegen restriktiver bzw. permissiver Migrationspolitik ist. In keinem einzigen kausalen Pfad der fsQCA-Analyse ist überhaupt eine Erklärung restriktiver bzw. permissiver Migrationspolitik ohne Berücksichtigung der Parteiideologie möglich – ein Ergebnis, das klar für die hohe Relevanz der parteipolitischen Zusammensetzung der Regierung spricht. Die Einstellungsmuster der Bevölkerung in dem jeweiligen Bundesland, die Migrationspolitik und die sozioökonomischen Bedingungen scheinen hingegen nur eine untergeordnete Rolle zu spielen.
      PubDate: 2021-01-22
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00474-1
       
  • Democracy in context: using a distributional semantic model to study
           differences in the usage of democracy across languages and countries
    • Abstract: Cross-cultural survey research rests upon the assumption that if survey features are kept constant, data will remain comparable across languages, cultures and countries. Yet translating concepts across languages, cultures and political contexts is complicated by linguistic, cultural, normative or institutional discrepancies. Such discrepancies are particularly relevant for complex political concepts such as democracy, where the literature on political support has revealed significant cross-cultural differences in people’s attitudes toward democracy. Recognizing that language, culture and other socio-political variables affect survey results has often been equated with giving up on comparative research and many survey researchers have consequently chosen to simply ignore the issue of comparability and measurement equivalence across languages, cultures and countries. This paper contributes to the debate, using a distributional semantic lexicon, which is a statistical model measuring co-occurrence statistics in large text data. The method is motivated by structuralist meaning theory, stating that words with similar meanings tend to occur in similar contexts, and that contexts shape and define the meanings of words. Compared to other methodological approaches aimed at identifying and measuring cross-cultural discrepancies, this approach enables us to systematically analyze how the concept of democracy is used in its natural habitat. Collecting geo-tagged language data from news and social online source documents this paper descriptively explores varieties in meanings of democracy across a substantial number of languages and countries, and maps ways in which democracy is used among online populations and regions worldwide.
      PubDate: 2020-12-18
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00472-3
       
  • Ursachen der unterschiedlichen Entwicklung demokratischer Standards in den
           postkommunistischen Staaten Europas
    • Abstract: Zusammenfassung Die politische Entwicklung etlicher bis 1989/91 kommunistischer Staaten in Richtung Rechtsstaatlichkeit verlief so positiv, dass die EU zwischen 2004 und 2013 elf von ihnen als Vollmitglieder aufnahm. Seither nimmt das politische System vor allem in Ungarn und Polen zunehmend autoritäre Züge an. Der Beitrag fragt zunächst nach möglichen langfristigen Prägungen der politischen Kultur dieser Länder durch ihre Zugehörigkeit zu Ostmittel- bzw. Südosteuropa und geht danach Ursachen für die nachlassende Attraktivität der demokratischen Wertevorstellungen der EU in einigen neuen Mitgliedsländern nach. Es zeigt sich, dass einige Nationalkonservative wie Orbán in Ungarn der EU den Verrat europäischer Grundwerte wie Christentum, Familie oder Nation vorwerfen und ihr eigenes Modell als die Zukunft Europas propagieren. Skizziert werden weiter der „Umbau“ der Verfassungssysteme in Ungarn und Polen, bei dem im politischen Institutionensystem gezielt horizontale Kontrollen abgebaut werden, sowie Argumentationsmuster populistischer Parteien. Deutlich wird dabei u. a., dass zu kommunistischer Zeit tabuisierte Konfliktlagen aus der Vergangenheit heute destabilisierend nachwirken. Abschließend wird gefragt, welche innergesellschaftlichen Kräfte wie etwa die Kirchen oder externen Akteure wie die EU zu einer Festigung der rechtsstaatlichen Einstellungen und Strukturen in den jeweiligen Gesellschaften beitragen können.
      PubDate: 2020-12-15
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00469-y
       
  • Challenges in conceptualizing and measuring meanings and understandings of
           democracy
    • Abstract: Research on meanings and understandings of democracy is growing. But besides useful theoretical and empirical insights, this research produces open questions concerning the conceptualization and the measurement of meanings of democracy. This special section—and especially this introductory paper and the different contributions—reflect on several key challenges and thereby go beyond the debate about advantages and disadvantages of open and closed questions measuring meanings of democracy in surveys. Both conceptualization and measurement have different challenges which researchers should take into account when developing research designs, specifically by doing cross-cultural comparisons. Other challenges are connected to the debate on universalism versus relativism and the usage of various terms, which are often not clearly defined. This paper offers an analytical framework to distinguish between meanings and understandings of democracy, thereby integrating comparative political theory and empirical democracy research through inductive and deductive approaches. And it gives an overview of the contributions of this special section. In sum, research on meanings and understandings of democracy is needed to gain a better picture of political cultures around the world.
      PubDate: 2020-12-15
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00470-5
       
  • Editorial
    • PubDate: 2020-12-09
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00471-4
       
  • “For me democracy is …” meanings of democracy from
           a phenomenological perspective
    • Abstract: Meanings of democracy are far more complex than results of standardized survey research imply. They are diverse and intertwined with other individual concepts and subjective experiences. In terms of phenomenological adequacy, they are important first order constructions that can be used for building second order typologies and explanations for political action. Survey-based quantitative research has clear limits in terms of gathering such first order constructions, even if one wants to integrate them. Drawing from a phenomenological perspective of methodology and experience from 389 qualitative interviews conducted in the state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, we argue that research on meanings of democracy might rather use open, qualitative assessments and consider four methodological aspects. First, we need to have a theoretical and methodological basis for analyzing “everyday philosophies” and root our concepts in these first order constructions. Phenomenology and the concept of lifeworld offer such a guideline. Second, we should not oversimplify analysis. People differ greatly in how they define democracy, and this should be reflected in research. Third, we advocate a qualitative multi-dimensional analysis that separates democracy, politics and actual use of democracy. This can be used to develop a typology of individual, but collectively shared, political lifeworlds. Finally, we argue that insights from this kind of research could be used to compliment standard survey instruments and contribute to developing and frequently testing a comprehensive instrument to assess the meanings of democracy in a more holistic way and to control our scientific second-order constructions of democracy.
      PubDate: 2020-12-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00465-2
       
  • Citizens’ inflated perceptions of the extent of democracy in different
           African countries: are individuals’ notions of the state an answer to
           the puzzle'
    • Abstract: Based on responses to the Afrobarometer and other surveys, it appears that most Africans believe their country is democratic. Oftentimes they even express satisfaction with the degree of democracy. Experts, however, have shown that many African countries have a flawed democracy or an authoritarian regime. This discrepancy raises questions about trying to measure democracy based on people’s perceptions and what these perceptions actually indicate. The current study’s analyses (multi-level modelling) based on Afrobarometer (wave 5) indicate that the nature of an individual’s orientation towards the state (‘rights seeker’ vs. ‘privilege seeker’) can contribute to that individual’s belief in the existence of democracy and satisfaction with that perceived democratic governance. This orientation functions as a layer of belief that can affect the cognitive system used to evaluate a political system. When comparing rights seekers’ and privilege seekers’ responses, the rights seekers are more demanding and have higher standards for personal freedom and political liberty. Consequently, there are variations in the perception of the degree of democracy. Given that the majority of respondents to the Afrobarometer have a privilege seeking nature, this may affect the survey results on questions about democracy. The study explores further mechanisms relating to the possible effects of an individual’s orientation towards the state. It finds that privilege seekers tend to believe their country has less corruption and less unequal treatment than rights seekers do. Furthermore, privilege seekers award higher scores on government performance indicators such as ‘management of economy’ and ‘reduction of crime’ than do right seekers.
      PubDate: 2020-11-25
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00466-1
       
  • Faas, Thorsten, Oscar W. Gabriel, und Jürgen Maier (Hrsg.). 2020.
           Politikwissenschaftliche Einstellungs- und Verhaltensforschung. Handbuch
           für Wissenschaft und Studium
    • PubDate: 2020-11-24
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00468-z
       
  • What drives citizens’ evaluation of democratic performance' The
           interaction of citizens’ democratic knowledge and institutional level of
           democracy
    • Abstract: Alongside citizens’ belief in the legitimacy of democracy, public support for the political regime is crucial to the survival of (democratic) political systems. Yet, we know fairly little about the relationship between citizens’ democratic knowledge and their evaluation of democratic performance from a global comparative perspective. In this article, we argue that the cognitive ability of citizens to distinguish between democratic and authoritarian characteristics constitutes the individual yardstick for assessing democracy in practice. Furthermore, we expect that the effect of citizens’ democratic knowledge on their evaluation of democratic performance is moderated by the institutional level of democracy. We test these assumptions by combining data from the sixth and seventh wave of the World Values Survey and the third pre-release of the European Values Study 2017, resulting in 114 representative samples from 80 countries with 128,127 respondents. Applying multilevel regression modeling, we find that the higher a country’s level of democracy, the more positive the effect of democratic knowledge on citizens’ assessment of democratic performance. In contrast, we find that the lower the level of democracy in a country, the more negative the effect of citizens’ democratic knowledge on their evaluation of democracy. Thus, this study shows that citizens who are more knowledgeable about democracy are most cognitively able to assess the level of democracy in line with country-level measures of democracy. These results open up new theoretical and empirical perspectives for related research on support for and satisfaction with democracy as well as research on democratization.
      PubDate: 2020-11-20
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00467-0
       
  • Economic inequality, income, and their effects on electoral and civil
           society participation in authoritarian regimes
    • Abstract: What effect does economic inequality in authoritarian regimes have upon the political participation of its citizens' Do individual income and repression each have a greater effect than economic inequality' Three prominent theories, namely the Conflict, Relative Power, and Resource Theories address the inequality-participation puzzle in the context of democracies. However, theoretical arguments and empirical evidence for non-democratic regimes are scarce. I argue that it is individual income and the level of repression rather than economic inequality that explain political participation in autocracies. Using three-level hierarchical models that combine micro and macro level data for 65,000 individuals covering a various set of 31 authoritarian regimes and 54 country-years, this analysis demonstrates that higher levels of economic inequality hardly suppress political participation among all citizens. However, individual income has a more powerfully effect on civil society participation, while the level of repression decreases the voting likelihood more powerful than income. These findings suggest that the Resource Theory generates the greatest empirical support for autocracies.
      PubDate: 2020-11-19
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00463-4
       
  • Kost, Andreas, Peter Massing, Marion Reiser, Hrsg. 2020. Handbuch
           Demokratie
    • PubDate: 2020-11-13
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00462-5
       
  • Heinze, Anna-Sophie. 2020. Strategien gegen Rechtspopulismus' Der
           Umgang mit der AfD in Landesparlamenten
    • PubDate: 2020-11-12
      DOI: 10.1007/s12286-020-00464-3
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.227.249.155
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-