Gesellschaftswissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (61) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (61) (remove)
Language
Has Fulltext
- yes (61)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (61)
Keywords
- populism (7)
- European Union (5)
- Critical Theory (4)
- Frankfurt School (4)
- Adorno (3)
- Carl Schmitt (2)
- Education (2)
- Educação (2)
- atonality (2)
- democracy (2)
This paper contributes to the clarification of the concept of “typicality” discussed in contemporary philosophy of physics by conceiving the nomological status of a typical behaviour such as that expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a “minutis rectis law”. A brief sketch of the discovery of “typicality” shows that there were ideas of typical behaviour not only in physics but also in sociology. On this basis and in analogy to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is shown that the nomological status of sociological laws such as Gresham’s Law can also be conceived as “minutis rectis laws”.
Disagreement among philosophers over the proper justification for political institutions is far from a new phenomenon. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that there is substantial room for dissent on this matter within democratic theory. As is well known, instrumentalism and proceduralism represent the two primary viewpoints that democrats can adopt to vindicate democratic legitimacy. While the former notoriously derives the value of democracy from its outcomes, the latter claims that a democratic decision-making process is inherently valuable. This article has two aims. First, it introduces three variables with which we can thoroughly categorise the aforementioned approaches. Second, it argues that the more promising version of proceduralism is extrinsic, rather than intrinsic, and that extrinsically procedural accounts can appeal to other values in the justification of democracy without translating into instrumentalism. This article is organised as follows. I present what I consider to be the ‘implicit view’ in the justification of democracy. Then, I analyse each of the three variables in a different section. Finally, I raise an objection against procedural views grounded in relational equality, which cannot account for the idea that democracy is a necessary condition for political legitimacy.
Dieser Beitrag reflektiert und ergänzt die aktuelle Diskussion über die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats zur Weiterentwicklung der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir richten dabei den Blick auf die vom Wissenschaftsrat attestierten Schwachstellen im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden und erläutern ihre Auswirkungen auf Interdisziplinarität, Internationalität und Politikberatung der deutschen Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir argumentieren, unter Verweis auf den Bericht des Wissenschaftsrats, dass eine breitere Methodenausbildung und -kenntnis von großer Bedeutung für interdisziplinäre und internationale Zusammenarbeit, aber auch für die Politikberatung ist. Zukünftige Initiativen innerhalb der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung sollten die Methodenvielfalt des Forschungsbereichs angemessen berücksichtigen und einen besonderen Fokus auf die Ausbildung im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden legen, um das Forschungsfeld in diesem Bereich zu stärken. Unser Beitrag entspringt einer Diskussion innerhalb des Arbeitskreises „Empirische Methoden der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung“ der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Friedens- und Konfliktforschung.
The policy studies literature is divided on how information processing takes place in policy processes. Punctuated equilibrium theory claims that policymakers tend to process information disproportionately, giving more weight to some incoming signals than to others. By contrast, thermostatic models of policymaking argue that policymakers respond in a more proportionate way. In this paper, we analyse information processing in the adoption of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) under the European Union’s (EU) Common Fisheries Policy. Based on a novel measure for the proportionality of information processing, it shows that over time TACs have become more closely aligned with incoming signals about fish stocks. This development can be explained through a combination of changing discourses around fisheries conservation and institutional adjustments in EU fisheries policy. This analysis has implications for the debate between punctuated equilibrium and thermostatic models of policymaking and our understanding of the effectiveness of EU fisheries policies.
The Spanish reproductive bioeconomy has bloomed in the last few decades. There are now over three hundred fertility clinics in Spain, which has become one of the main destinations for what is often called “reproductive tourism” in the European context. The phenomenon of assisted reproduction has been extensively studied within English-speaking countries of the global North, but not so much in the cluster of Spanish-speaking countries, with a few interesting exceptions. Following the invitation to collaborate in this special issue around reproduction in Latin America and Spain, we offer an analysis of how Spanish oocyte provision and domestic work function as part of global care chains (GCC). We will compare the results of two major projects: one focusing on domestic work and the other on egg donation programs, both in Spain. We will introduce different perspectives around care and GCC, discussing how transference of oocytes can be viewed as a type of feminized labor involving affective-care work, clinical work, and biological work. The framework of GCC, a concept used to unpack unjust power relations embedded in transferences of care in current neoliberal and globalized socio-economic arrangements, can help to enable a conversation on how transferences of reproductive capacity might be reinforcing the stratification of reproduction.
Right-wing populist parties often resort to a xenophobic rhetoric which both exploits and fuels existing illiberal anti-immigrant sentiments. Since populist anti-immigrant sentiments are at odds with fundamental liberal values and challenge the implementation of any liberal ethics of migration, this essay argues that states should adopt civic education policies to counter such sentiments and persuade citizens to develop liberal attitudes towards immigrants. Empirical evidence suggests that sentiments may be malleable, and there are already examples of local governments devising or supporting initiatives aimed at dispelling prejudices and promoting positive interactions. It might be objected that a government’s involvement in shaping sentiments and opinions conflicts with liberal democratic states’ commitment to individual autonomy and electoral fairness. However, I argue that civic education policies are not necessarily incompatible with such values and I provide five criteria to identify policies that liberal democratic governments may legitimately adopt to counteract anti-immigrant sentiments.
The concept of solidarity has been receiving growing attention from scholars in a wide range of disciplines. While this trend coincides with widespread unsuccessful attempts to achieve solidarity in the real world, the failure of solidarity as such remains a relatively unexplored topic. In the case of the so-called European Union (EU) refugee crisis, the fact that EU member states failed to fulfil their commitment to solidarity is now regarded as established wisdom. But as we try to come to terms with failing solidarity in the EU we are faced with a number of important questions: are all instances of failing solidarity equally morally reprehensible? Are some motivations for resorting to unsolidaristic measures more valid than others? What claims have an effective countervailing force against the commitment to act in solidarity?
Populists in the EU often call for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights. These calls are often demagogic and parochial. This paper aims to show what exactly is both distinct and problematic with these populist calls from a normative point of view while not necessarily reducible to demagogy and parochialism. The overall aim of the paper is not to argue that all populists call for such restrictions nor to claim that all calls for such restrictions are populist. The purpose of the paper is rather humble. It only aims to show that populist calls for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights are characterised by two normatively problematic arguments that target two different subsets of the citizenry: what I dub for the purpose of this paper the moralists and the immoralists. It is the way populists address these two subsets of the citizenry, as well as the fact that they could simultaneously appeal to the concerns of both groups, that makes populist approaches to welfare rights both conceptually distinct to other approaches as well as potentially politically appealing to a more diverse population of voters.
This paper critically engages the legal and political framework for responding to democracy and rule of law backsliding in the EU. I develop a new and original critique of Article 7 TEU based on it being democratically illegitimate and normatively incoherent qua itself in conflict with EU fundamental values. Other more incremental and scaleable responses are desirable, and the paper moves on to assess the legitimacy of economic sanctions such as tying access to EU funds to performance on democratic and rule of law indicators or imposing fines on backsliding states. I hold such sanctions to be a priori legitimate, and argue that in some cases economic sanctions are even normatively required, given that EU material support of backsliding member states can amount to material complicity in their backsliding. However, an economic conditionality mechanism would need to be designed to minimize unjust and counterproductive effects. One way to pursue this could be to complement sanctions against the backsliding government with investment for prodemocratic actors in that state.
Recent developments in Hungary and Poland have made democratic backsliding a major issue of concern within the European Union (EU). This article focuses on the secondary agents that facilitate democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland: the European People’s Party (EPP), which has continually protected the Hungarian Fidesz government from EU sanctions, and the Hungarian ruling party Fidesz, which repeatedly promised to block any EU-level sanctions against Poland in the Council. The article analyses these agents’ behaviour as an instance of transnational complicity and passes a tentative judgment as to which of the two cases is normatively more problematic. The analysis has implications for possible countervailing responses to democratic backsliding within EU member states.