Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (72) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (42)
- Contribution to a Periodical (12)
- Doctoral Thesis (9)
- Book (3)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Review (2)
- Master's Thesis (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (72)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (72)
Keywords
- natural resources (6)
- attachment (5)
- social investment (4)
- improvement (3)
- public opinion (3)
- welfare state reform (3)
- China (2)
- Herrschaft (2)
- Praxistheorie (2)
- attitudes (2)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (72) (remove)
In ‘Justice and Natural Resources,’ Chris Armstrong offers a rich and sophisticated egalitarian theory of resource justice, according to which the benefits and burdens flowing from natural (and non-natural) resources are ideally distributed with a view to equalize people’s access to wellbeing, unless there are compelling reasons that justify departures from that egalitarian default. Armstrong discusses two such reasons: special claims from ‘improvement’ and ‘attachment.’ In this paper, I critically assess the account he gives of these potential constraints on global equality. I argue that his recognition of them has implications that Armstrong does not anticipate, and which challenge some important theses in his book. First, special claims from improvement will justify larger departures from the egalitarian default than Armstrong believes. Second, a consistent application of Armstrong’s life planfoundation for special claims from attachment implies that nation-states may move closer to justify ‘permanent sovereignty’ over the resources within their territories than what his analysis suggests.
Four years after the Panama Papers scandal, tax avoidance remains an urgent moral-political problem. Moving beyond both the academic and policy mainstream, I advocate the “democratization of tax enforcement,” by which I mean systematic efforts to make tax avoiders accountable to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Both individual oligarchs and multinational corporations have access to sophisticated tax avoidance strategies that impose significant fiscal costs on democracies and exacerbate preexisting distributive and political inequalities. Yet much contemporary tax sheltering occurs within the letter of the law, rendering criminal sanctions ineffective. In response, I argue for the creation of Citizen Tax Juries, deliberative minipublics empowered to scrutinize tax avoiders, demand accountability, and facilitate concrete reforms. This proposal thus responds to the wider aspiration, within contemporary democratic theory, to secure more popular control over essential economic processes.
Four years after the Panama Papers scandal, tax avoidance remains an urgent moral-political problem. Moving beyond both the academic and policy mainstream, I advocate the “democratization of tax enforcement,” by which I mean systematic efforts to make tax avoiders accountable to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Both individual oligarchs and multinational corporations have access to sophisticated tax avoidance strategies that impose significant fiscal costs on democracies and exacerbate preexisting distributive and political inequalities. Yet much contemporary tax sheltering occurs within the letter of the law, rendering criminal sanctions ineffective. In response, I argue for the creation of Citizen Tax Juries, deliberative minipublics empowered to scrutinize tax avoiders, demand accountability, and facilitate concrete reforms. This proposal thus responds to the wider aspiration, within contemporary democratic theory, to secure more popular control over essential economic processes.
A reply to my critics
(2021)
It is a real pleasure to reply to so many thoughtful and probing responses to my book. In what follows, I will focus on six key themes that emerge across the various pieces. Some of them call into question core commitments of my theory, and in those cases I will try to show what might be said in its defence. Quite a number of the critics, however, present what we might call expansionist arguments: though they endorse some of the arguments I make, that is – or pick up some of its key concepts – they seek to push them in new and interesting directions. I will suggest that many of those arguments look likely to be successful, though I will also express caution about one or two of them. I doubt, however, that I will be the final judge of their success. Early on in the book I express the hope that it might provide a set of conceptual tools capable of advancing discussions about resource justice more broadly, even for scholars who reject my own idiosyncratic approach. Having made that gambit, I cannot now claim to have a monopoly on the use of the tools in question. Witnessing the use that others have already made of them has been a refreshing and rewarding experience.
In this article, I question the use of the notion of ‘constituent power’ as a tool for the democratization of the European Union (EU). Rather than seeing the absence of a transnational constituent power as a cause of the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’, I identify it as an opportunity for unfettered democratic participation. Against the reification of power-in-action into a power-constituted-in-law, I argue that the democratization of the EU can only be achieved through the multiplication of ‘constituent moments’. I begin by deconstructing the normative justifications surrounding the concept of constituent power. Here I analyze the structural aporia of constituent power and question the autonomous and emancipatory dimension of this notion. I then test the theoretical hypothesis of this structural aporia of the popular constituent power by comparing it with the historical experiments of a European popular constituent power. Finally, based on these theoretical and empirical observations, I propose to replace the ambivalence of the concept of popular constituent power with a more cautious approach to the bottom-up democratization of European integration: that of a multiplication of transnational constituent moments.
Der Übergang von der Schule in die Ausbildung oder in das Studium ist ein entscheidender und wegweisender Schritt in der Bildungsbiografie von jungen Menschen. Der dabei vollzogene Übergangsprozess hat sich im Laufe der vergangenen Jahrzehnte deutlich verändert und zunehmend individualisiert. In diesem Zeitraum haben sich auch die Anforderungen und Verhältnisse auf dem Ausbildungs- und Arbeitsmarkt vor allem durch die Expansion des Dienstleistungsbereichs verändert. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war es, die Entwicklung des Übergangsprozesses in Form der Dauer und der absolvierten Stationen vom Verlassen der Schule bis zum Beginn der beruflichen oder akademischen Erstausbildung vor dem Hintergrund der Zunahme an Arbeitskräften im Dienstleistungssektor bei westdeutschen Jugendlichen im Zeitraum zwischen 1971 und 2012 zu untersuchen. Dies wurde auch getrennt nach Schulabschlussgruppen überprüft. Im Rahmen der Ergebnisse zeigte sich, dass ein gestiegener Anteil an dienstleistungstätigen Arbeitskräften auf dem Arbeitsmarkt in der Zeit zwischen 1971 und 2012 keinen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Dauer und die absolvierten Stationen des Übergangs hatte. Dies galt unabhängig vom erreichten Schulabschluss. Die vorliegenden Erkenntnisse dienen als Anstoß dafür, den Übergangsprozess von der Schule in die Ausbildung genauer zu betrachten und hierbei gegebenenfalls weitere potenzielle Einflussfaktoren einzubeziehen.
The article “Ganging up on Trump? Sino-German Relations and the Problem with Soft Balancing against the USA”, written by Sebastian Biba, was originally published Online First without Open Access. After publication in volume 25, issue 4, pages 531–550 the authors decided to opt for Open Choice and to make the article an Open Access publication. Therefore, the copyright of the article has been changed to © The Author(s) 2021 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. The original article has been corrected.