Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (803)
- Report (719)
- Review (160)
- Part of Periodical (141)
- Contribution to a Periodical (111)
- Doctoral Thesis (111)
- Book (95)
- Working Paper (75)
- Part of a Book (51)
- Conference Proceeding (30)
Language
- German (1384)
- English (649)
- Portuguese (205)
- Spanish (69)
- Italian (24)
- French (12)
- Ukrainian (9)
- slo (7)
- Catalan (4)
- Multiple languages (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2378)
Keywords
- Adorno (52)
- Deutschland (48)
- Islamischer Staat (43)
- USA (42)
- Terrorismus (38)
- Syrien (35)
- China (30)
- Russland (30)
- IS (29)
- Ukraine (28)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2378) (remove)
Gender and attitudes toward welfare state reform: Are women really social investment promoters?
(2021)
This article contributes to the study of the demand side of welfare politics by investigating gender differences in social investment preferences systematically. Building on the different functions of social investment policies in creating, preserving, or mobilizing skills, we argue that women do not support social investment policies generally more strongly than men. Rather, women demand, in particular, policies to preserve their skills during career interruptions and help to mobilize their skills on the labour market. In a second analytical step, we examine women’s policy priorities if skill preservation and mobilization come at the expense of social compensation. We test our arguments for eight Western European countries with data from the INVEDUC survey. The confirmation of our arguments challenges a core assumption of the literatures on the social investment turn and women’s political realignment. We discuss the implication of our findings in the conclusions.
Zwei traditionelle Wirkungsbereiche von Intellektuellen, die politische Medienöffentlichkeit und das akademische Feld, unterliegen seit über drei Jahrzehnten anhaltenden strukturellen Veränderungen. Diese gelten vielfach als Ursache einer tiefen Krise oder sogar des Verschwindens der Intellektuellen. Doch um welche Veränderungen geht es dabei genau, und wie restrukturieren sie die gegenwärtige Rolle und Funktion von Intellektuellen? Zur Beantwortung dieser Fragen entwickelt der Beitrag einen Ansatz, der die struktur- und erfahrungsbezogenen Bedingungen intellektueller Praxis fokussiert und historisch vergleichend analysiert. Um eine Vergleichsfolie zu gewinnen, wird die intellektuelle Praxis Theodor W. Adornos analysiert. Dabei zeigt sich, dass Adorno die charakteristischen Widersprüche öffentlichen und akademischen intellektuellen Engagements methodisch aufrechterhielt, indem er eine Position des „Dazwischen“ reklamierte. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden seit den 1970er-Jahren forcierte strukturelle Veränderungen der Medienöffentlichkeit und des akademischen Feldes als Prozesse der „Vereindeutigung“ interpretiert, die eine widerspruchsaffine intellektuelle Praxis erschweren. In der Folge lassen sich eine ausgeweitete kommerzielle sowie eine eingeschränkte akademische Intellektuellenpraxis beobachten, die jeweils politisch wirksame Interventionen begrenzen.
Welfare is the largest expenditure category in all advanced democracies. Consequently, much literature has studied partisan effects on total and policy-specific welfare expenditure. Yet, these results cannot be trusted: The methodological standard is to apply time-series cross-section-regressions to annual observation data. But governments hardly change annually. Thus, the number of observations is artificially inflated, leading to incorrect estimates. While this problem has recently been acknowledged, it has not been convincingly resolved. We propose Mixed-Effects Models as a solution, which allow decomposing variance into different levels and permit complex cross-classification data structures. We argue that Mixed-Effects models combine the strengths of existing methodological approaches while alleviating their weaknesses. Empirically, we study partisan effects on total and on disaggregated expenditure in 23 OECD-countries, 1960-2012, using several measures of party preferences.
The debate on effects of globalization on welfare states is extensive. Often couched in terms of a battle between the compensation and the efficiency thesis, the scholarly literature has provided contradictory arguments and findings. This article contributes to the scholarly debate by exploring in greater detail the micro-level foundations of compensation theory. More specifically, we distinguish between individual policy preferences for compensatory social policies (unemployment insurance) and human capital-focused social investment policies (education) and expect globalization to mainly affect demand for educational investment. A multi-level analysis of ISSP survey data provides empirical support for this hypothesis. This finding provides an important revision and extension of the classical analytical perspective of compensation theory, because it shows that citizens value the social investment function of the welfare state above and beyond simple compensation via social transfers. This might be particularly relevant in today's skill-centered knowledge economies.
We cannot imagine a political system without opposition. Despite this crucial position in politics, political science has largely neglected to study oppositions. Attempting to fill this gap, this article analyses the institutional opportunities of parliamentary oppositions. It offers a parsimonious framework by distinguishing two dimensions of opposition influence: Some institutions enable oppositions to control governments, while others offer opportunities to present alternatives. A comparison of oppositions’ opportunities in 21 democracies shows that countries fall into four groups along these dimensions: In majoritarian democracies, weak control mechanisms are countered by excellent opportunities to publicize alternatives. Consociational democracies are characterized by strong control mechanisms, but provide only weak opportunities to present alternatives. Moreover, in Southern Europe, control mechanisms and opportunities to present alternatives are weak, while both are pronounced in Nordic Europe. The results are summarized in three indices that can easily be applied in future research examining oppositions and their power.
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, social restrictions and social distancing policies forced large parts of social life to take place within the household. However, comparatively little is known about how private living situations shaped individuals experiences of this crisis. To investigate this issue, we analyze how experiences and concerns vary across living arrangements along two dimensions that may be associated with social disadvantage: loneliness and care. In doing so, we employ quantitative text analysis on open-ended questions from survey data on a sample of 1,073 individuals living in Germany. We focus our analyses on four different household structures: living alone, shared living without children, living with a partner and children, and single parents. We find that single parents (who are primarily single mothers) are at high risk of experiencing care-related worries, particularly regarding their financial situation, while individuals living alone are most likely to report feelings of loneliness. Those individuals living in shared houses, with or without children, had the lowest risk of experiencing both loneliness and care-related worries. These findings illustrate that the living situation at home substantially impacts how individuals experienced and coped with the pandemic situation during the first wave of the pandemic.
My aim in this paper is to make the debates about epistemic injustice fruitful for an analysis of trust in the knowledge of others. Epistemic trust is understood here in a broad sense: not only as trust in scientific knowledge or expert knowledge, but also as trust in implicit, positioned and experience-based knowledge. Using insights from discussions of epistemic injustice, I argue for three interrelated theses:
1. Questions of epistemic trust and trustworthiness cannot be answered with reference to individual virtue alone; rather, they have a structural component.
2. The rationality of epistemic trust must be analyzed against the background of social structures and social relations of domination.
3. Epistemic trust is (also) a political phenomenon and epistemically just relations depend on political transformation processes that promote equality.