Thomas Dietz, Doris Fuchs, Armin Schäfer, Antje Vetterlein
{"title":"引言:映射Forschungsfeldes Nexus是民主主义−可持续性","authors":"Thomas Dietz, Doris Fuchs, Armin Schäfer, Antje Vetterlein","doi":"10.1007/s11615-023-00511-0","DOIUrl":null,"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":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politische Vierteljahresschrift\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00511-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politische Vierteljahresschrift","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00511-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Einleitung: Mapping des Forschungsfeldes zum Nexus Demokratie − Nachhaltigkeit
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.
期刊介绍:
- Für die deutsche Version bitte nach unten scrollen -
Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS) (“German Political Science Quarterly”, GPSQ) publishes the latest double-blind peer-reviewed research results from all sub-disciplines of political science. It thus includes original contributions from political theory and the history of ideas, from the analysis and comparison of political systems, from policy analysis, from the field of international relations and foreign policy, from empirical social research and methodology, from political sociology as well as political science pedagogy.
The contributions published in PVS come from German or German-speaking political scientists as well as from international political scientists who refer to the German or German-speaking political science.
Special Issues
Special Issues provide opportunities to contribute to important thematic and/or theoretical developments in political science or its subfields. Regular Calls for Proposals are initiated by the Editors, but potential Guest Editors may also send offers for special issues at any time. Special issues include at least six contributions to be recruited by the Guest Editors, supplemented by an introduction. Most of these contributions are critical papers, but the integration of a literature review and/or one or two research notes is also possible. All contributions need to successfully pass the double-blind peer-review process before publication.
The PVS is listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI).
______
Die Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS) – German Political Science Quarterly bietet Raum für neueste Forschungsergebnisse aus allen Teildisziplinen der Politikwissenschaft. Sie beinhaltet doppelblind begutachtete Beiträge aus der Politischen Theorie und Ideengeschichte, aus dem Bereich Analyse und Vergleich politischer Systeme, aus der Policy-Analyse, aus dem Bereich der Internationalen Beziehungen und der Außenpolitik, aus der empirischen Sozialforschung und Methodenlehre, der Politischen Soziologie sowie der Didaktik der Politikwissenschaft.
Die in der PVS veröffentlichten Beiträge stammen von deutschen bzw. deutschsprachigen Politikwissenschaftler*innen sowie von internationalen Politikwissenschaftler*innen, die sich mit der deutschen bzw. deutschsprachigen Politikwissenschaft auseinandersetzen.
Special Issues
Das Special Issue soll die Möglichkeit bieten, auf thematische und theoretische Entwicklungen im Fach insgesamt oder in einzelnen Teildisziplinen zu reagieren, denen eine fachallgemeine Bedeutung zugeschrieben werden kann. Die Redaktion akquiriert mögliche Schwerpunkte eigenständig über entsprechende Call for Proposals, ist aber für entsprechende Initiativen und Vorschläge offen.
In Special Issues werden mindestens sechs von Gastherausgeber*innen einzuwerbende Beiträge zusammengefasst und durch eine inhaltliche Einleitung durch die Gastherausgeber*innen ergänzt. Die Beiträge sollen schwerpunktmäßig Abhandlungen sein; es sind aber auch die Integration einer Literaturübersicht und/oder einer bis zwei Research Notes möglich. Veröffentlicht werden ausschließlich Beiträge, die erfolgreich das anonymisierte Gutachter*innenverfahren durchlaufen haben und für eine Veröffentlichung empfohlen wurden.
Die PVS wird im Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) erfasst.