Pub Date : 2023-11-23DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00513-y
Nicolas Binder
{"title":"Economic and Social Policy Attitudes and Populism: Vertical Axes of Conflict Instead of Ideological Consistency","authors":"Nicolas Binder","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00513-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00513-y","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139242609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-22DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00517-8
Henning Deters
{"title":"Joerges, Christian (2022): Konflikt und Transformation. Essays zur Europäischen Rechtspolitik","authors":"Henning Deters","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00517-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00517-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"161 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139249485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-22DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00514-x
Mathias Albert
{"title":"Patomäki, Heikki (2023): World Statehood. The Future of World Politics","authors":"Mathias Albert","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00514-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00514-x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"24 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139250059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00511-0
Thomas Dietz, Doris Fuchs, Armin Schäfer, Antje Vetterlein
Abstract With each new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the urgency to address climate change seems to increase. As the pressure to act rises, debates are intensifying regarding whether democracies can move toward sustainability fast enough. In this introduction to the special issue, we argue that current debates about the democracy–sustainability nexus revolve around the question of who should decide. Much of the recent debate can be structured along three opposites: experts versus laypersons, less versus more participation, and state versus market/private actor solutions. The first distinction asks whether climate change necessitates a shift of decision-making powers to scientists and experts rather than politicians or citizens. In the second debate, those who favor more participation in environmental policymaking face those who demand less. For example, whereas some promote new forms of deliberative forums, others doubt that these can be effective. Finally, there is a debate on whether markets and private actor networks might provide more efficient and effective ways to deal with the climate crisis than state regulation. While these perspectives are highly diverse and even contradictory, they are united in the belief that standard procedures of liberal democracy are insufficient to achieve sustainability.
{"title":"Einleitung: Mapping des Forschungsfeldes zum Nexus Demokratie − Nachhaltigkeit","authors":"Thomas Dietz, Doris Fuchs, Armin Schäfer, Antje Vetterlein","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00511-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00511-0","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With each new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the urgency to address climate change seems to increase. As the pressure to act rises, debates are intensifying regarding whether democracies can move toward sustainability fast enough. In this introduction to the special issue, we argue that current debates about the democracy–sustainability nexus revolve around the question of who should decide. Much of the recent debate can be structured along three opposites: experts versus laypersons, less versus more participation, and state versus market/private actor solutions. The first distinction asks whether climate change necessitates a shift of decision-making powers to scientists and experts rather than politicians or citizens. In the second debate, those who favor more participation in environmental policymaking face those who demand less. For example, whereas some promote new forms of deliberative forums, others doubt that these can be effective. Finally, there is a debate on whether markets and private actor networks might provide more efficient and effective ways to deal with the climate crisis than state regulation. While these perspectives are highly diverse and even contradictory, they are united in the belief that standard procedures of liberal democracy are insufficient to achieve sustainability.","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"36 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136347805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-09DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00505-y
Roland Lhotta
Abstract The following reflections are an attempt in constitutional theory to adress the core elements of the U.S. constitutional crisis. It will first identify structural and normative properties of the U.S. Constitution that may become battlegrounds for adversarial ideas, meanings, logics of appropriateness, and, finally, institutional and constitutional missions, all centering around constitutional liberty. In a second step, it will be shown that institutional theory addresses important links between norms/rules/institutions and actors/citizens that are crucial for a constitution and its potential normative battlegrounds. It is alleged that a constitutional crisis is closely related to incommensurable interpretations of constitutional value choices (e.g., liberty) and the ways actors choose to make their interpretations actionable through the institutional channels of a polity. Constitutional theory, hence, should consider institutionalist findings in order to come to grips with the phenomenon of constitutional crisis. Third, in this light it will be discussed whether the prevailing models of (U.S.) constitutionalism are able to assimilate defects in the crucial relationship between the constitution and actors, especially when it comes to factionalized and polarized meanings and interpretations—which in turn trigger adversarial institutional/constitutional missions and may lead to constitutional wars. Fourth and finally, these reflections are taken together for an outlook on the prospects of constitutional development in the United States and the challenges that lie ahead.
{"title":"Dysfunctional Constitutionalism or Dysfunctional Politics: A Matter of Law, Politics, and Institutional Design","authors":"Roland Lhotta","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00505-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00505-y","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The following reflections are an attempt in constitutional theory to adress the core elements of the U.S. constitutional crisis. It will first identify structural and normative properties of the U.S. Constitution that may become battlegrounds for adversarial ideas, meanings, logics of appropriateness, and, finally, institutional and constitutional missions, all centering around constitutional liberty. In a second step, it will be shown that institutional theory addresses important links between norms/rules/institutions and actors/citizens that are crucial for a constitution and its potential normative battlegrounds. It is alleged that a constitutional crisis is closely related to incommensurable interpretations of constitutional value choices (e.g., liberty) and the ways actors choose to make their interpretations actionable through the institutional channels of a polity. Constitutional theory, hence, should consider institutionalist findings in order to come to grips with the phenomenon of constitutional crisis. Third, in this light it will be discussed whether the prevailing models of (U.S.) constitutionalism are able to assimilate defects in the crucial relationship between the constitution and actors, especially when it comes to factionalized and polarized meanings and interpretations—which in turn trigger adversarial institutional/constitutional missions and may lead to constitutional wars. Fourth and finally, these reflections are taken together for an outlook on the prospects of constitutional development in the United States and the challenges that lie ahead.","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":" 22","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135240794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-06DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00509-8
Gert Pickel, Susanne Pickel
Abstract For some time now, the Christian right in the United States has sought proximity to the Republican Party. However, it is only since Donald Trump’s presidency that the central desires of the Christian right for a moral change have been fulfilled. This hope has existed since the 1980s and has been expressed in far-above-average voting behavior, especially of white evangelicals and Pentecostals for the Republicans. Thus, the Republicans’ focus on moral issues increasingly links them to the image of white Christian nationalism. This stance opposes transgender issues, homosexuality, abortion, and critical race theory and is preoccupied with America’s founding era and racist structures. Favored by the bipolar electoral system and driven by a politics that differentiates between good and evil, a political polarization is establishing itself that leaves hardly any room for compromise. These developments are not limited to the United States but are beginning to migrate globally, as recent incidents in Brazil, Serbia, and Russia show. The United States can be seen as a prototypical case of a particular form of transformation of a democracy into a polarized political system. A certain understanding of religion plays just as much a role in this as the rejection of plurality, especially at the level of sexual and gender diversity.
{"title":"A God Gap Driving a Revolution from Conservative to the Far Right in the United States—With Significance for Europe?","authors":"Gert Pickel, Susanne Pickel","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00509-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00509-8","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For some time now, the Christian right in the United States has sought proximity to the Republican Party. However, it is only since Donald Trump’s presidency that the central desires of the Christian right for a moral change have been fulfilled. This hope has existed since the 1980s and has been expressed in far-above-average voting behavior, especially of white evangelicals and Pentecostals for the Republicans. Thus, the Republicans’ focus on moral issues increasingly links them to the image of white Christian nationalism. This stance opposes transgender issues, homosexuality, abortion, and critical race theory and is preoccupied with America’s founding era and racist structures. Favored by the bipolar electoral system and driven by a politics that differentiates between good and evil, a political polarization is establishing itself that leaves hardly any room for compromise. These developments are not limited to the United States but are beginning to migrate globally, as recent incidents in Brazil, Serbia, and Russia show. The United States can be seen as a prototypical case of a particular form of transformation of a democracy into a polarized political system. A certain understanding of religion plays just as much a role in this as the rejection of plurality, especially at the level of sexual and gender diversity.","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"3 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135589351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00501-2
Thomas Biebricher
Abstract Starting from the assessment that contemporary American conservatism is in a state of crisis, manifested in a dynamic of growing radicalization, this article seeks to identify the factors and actors that contributed to this trajectory and to thus elucidate its more fundamental drivers, assuming that Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movements are symptoms rather than causes of this radicalization. To this effect, a succinct and pointed history of modern American conservatism from its beginnings in the postwar era is presented, using a periodization into three broad eras. Particular attention is given to the internal heterogeneity and conflicts within the conservative movement on a political and an intellectual level that help explain how conservatism as a whole, or at least its dominant forces, has continued to move to the right over the decades. In order to put this trajectory into perspective, a parallel history of German conservatism is used as contrast. One conclusion that can be drawn from this account is that both German and American conservatism are experiencing a crisis, but for very different reasons and with highly different manifestations. While American conservatism is in a radicalization spiral, German conservatism suffers instead from an identity crisis and a loss of any meaningful ideological–political profile.
{"title":"Die Krise des amerikanischen Konservatismus in historisch-vergleichender Perspektive","authors":"Thomas Biebricher","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00501-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00501-2","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Starting from the assessment that contemporary American conservatism is in a state of crisis, manifested in a dynamic of growing radicalization, this article seeks to identify the factors and actors that contributed to this trajectory and to thus elucidate its more fundamental drivers, assuming that Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movements are symptoms rather than causes of this radicalization. To this effect, a succinct and pointed history of modern American conservatism from its beginnings in the postwar era is presented, using a periodization into three broad eras. Particular attention is given to the internal heterogeneity and conflicts within the conservative movement on a political and an intellectual level that help explain how conservatism as a whole, or at least its dominant forces, has continued to move to the right over the decades. In order to put this trajectory into perspective, a parallel history of German conservatism is used as contrast. One conclusion that can be drawn from this account is that both German and American conservatism are experiencing a crisis, but for very different reasons and with highly different manifestations. While American conservatism is in a radicalization spiral, German conservatism suffers instead from an identity crisis and a loss of any meaningful ideological–political profile.","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135113568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1007/s11615-023-00506-x
Frederic Graeb, Patrick Bernhagen
Zusammenfassung Kommunalwahlen werden nicht zuletzt aufgrund ihrer geringen Wahlbeteiligung häufig als nationale Nebenwahlen betrachtet. Die Fokussierung der Nebenwahlperspektive auf nationale Einflussfaktoren führt jedoch zu einer Unterbewertung lokaler Heterogenität. Der Artikel untersucht, inwiefern lokale Kontextfaktoren, insbesondere Gemeindegröße, Wahl- und Parteiensysteme sowie die wahrgenommene Bedeutung der kommunalen Ebene einen Beitrag zur Erklärung von Beteiligungsunterschieden zwischen Kommunalwahlen leisten. Dazu analysieren wir die Wahlbeteiligung bei den Kommunalwahlen 2014 in neun Bundesländern. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Wahlsysteme freier Listen einen negativen Einfluss auf die Wahlbeteiligung haben. Die Erwartung, dass die kommunale Wahlbeteiligung mit steigender Gemeindegröße abnimmt, kann hingegen nur mit Einschränkung bestätigt werden. Auch kann ein Einfluss des lokalen Parteiensystems nur unter Vorbehalt nachgewiesen werden. Gemeinden mit nationalisiertem Parteiensystem genießen zwar eine höhere Wahlbeteiligung, aber der Effekt ist nur von geringem Umfang und kann lediglich auf der Aggregatdatenebene geschätzt werden. In Einklang mit der Nebenwahlthese zeigt sich schließlich, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit der individuellen Wahlteilnahme mit der wahrgenommenen Bedeutung der Kommunalwahlen steigt.
{"title":"First-Order or Second-Order Election?","authors":"Frederic Graeb, Patrick Bernhagen","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00506-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00506-x","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung Kommunalwahlen werden nicht zuletzt aufgrund ihrer geringen Wahlbeteiligung häufig als nationale Nebenwahlen betrachtet. Die Fokussierung der Nebenwahlperspektive auf nationale Einflussfaktoren führt jedoch zu einer Unterbewertung lokaler Heterogenität. Der Artikel untersucht, inwiefern lokale Kontextfaktoren, insbesondere Gemeindegröße, Wahl- und Parteiensysteme sowie die wahrgenommene Bedeutung der kommunalen Ebene einen Beitrag zur Erklärung von Beteiligungsunterschieden zwischen Kommunalwahlen leisten. Dazu analysieren wir die Wahlbeteiligung bei den Kommunalwahlen 2014 in neun Bundesländern. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Wahlsysteme freier Listen einen negativen Einfluss auf die Wahlbeteiligung haben. Die Erwartung, dass die kommunale Wahlbeteiligung mit steigender Gemeindegröße abnimmt, kann hingegen nur mit Einschränkung bestätigt werden. Auch kann ein Einfluss des lokalen Parteiensystems nur unter Vorbehalt nachgewiesen werden. Gemeinden mit nationalisiertem Parteiensystem genießen zwar eine höhere Wahlbeteiligung, aber der Effekt ist nur von geringem Umfang und kann lediglich auf der Aggregatdatenebene geschätzt werden. In Einklang mit der Nebenwahlthese zeigt sich schließlich, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit der individuellen Wahlteilnahme mit der wahrgenommenen Bedeutung der Kommunalwahlen steigt.","PeriodicalId":45529,"journal":{"name":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","volume":"35 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135216557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：