Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (293) (remove)
Language
- English (293) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (293)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (293) (remove)
Keywords
- global justice (23)
- populism (12)
- democracy (9)
- gender (8)
- European Union (7)
- climate change (7)
- critical theory (7)
- Frankfurt School (6)
- deliberative democracy (6)
- human rights (6)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (293) (remove)
Online reading behavior can be regarded as a "new" form of cultural capital in today’s digital world. However, it is unclear whether "traditional" mechanisms of cultural and social reproduction are also found in this domain, and whether they manifest uniformly across countries at different stages of development. This article analyzes whether the early home literacy environment has an impact on informational online reading behavior among adolescents and whether this association varies between countries with different levels of digitalization and educational expansion. Data from the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) were used for the empirical analyses. The results of regression models with country-fixed effects indicate a positive association between literacy activities in early childhood and informational online reading at age 15. This association was quite stable across countries. These findings are discussed in light of cultural and social reproduction theory and digital divide research.
This paper considers the trend towards megaregionalism (TTIP, TPP) that became prominent in the trade domain in the last years of the Obama administration. While megaregionalism has fallen by the wayside since Trump’s inauguration, the underlying rationale for such treaties will most likely reassert itself rather soon. So there are structural issues that need to be discussed from a standpoint of global justice. In all likelihood, megaregionalism is detrimental to global justice. TTIP in particular, or anything like it, might derail any possibility for a trade organization to aid the pursuit of justice at the global level, and any possibility that trade will be used to that end. From the standpoint of global justice one must hope that megaregionalism does not replace WTO multilateralism. The global-justice framework used here is the grounds-of-justice approach offered in the author’s 2012 On Global Justice.
Megaregional trade negotiations have become the subject of heated debate, above all in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In this article, I argue that the justice of the global order suffers from its institutional fragmentation into regime complexes. From a republican perspective, which aspires to non-domination as a guiding principles and idea of global justice, regime complexes raise specific and important challenges in that they open the door to specific forms of domination. I thereby challenge a more optimistic outlook in regime complexes, which paints a positive normative picture of regime complexes, arguing that they enable the enhancement of democracy beyond the state and, consequently, have the potential to reduce the democratic deficit in global governance. By drawing attention to how regime complexes reinforce domination-related injustice, this article contributes an original perspective on megaregionals and to exploring the implications of global justice as non-domination.
Recent trade negotiations such as TTIP include investor protection clauses. Against the background of an analysis of the case for trade, the paper asks whether such clauses can be justified from a normative perspective. More specifically, what is the impact of investor protection on the domestic distribution of the gains from trade between labour and capital, and how should we assess this impact from the perspective of justice? In order to answer this question, the paper develops a series of ideal-type scenarios that reflect the consequences of investor protection on employment on the one hand, and on the distributive conflict between labour and capital on the other. While no claim is made which of these scenarios corresponds to TTIP or other trade agreements, they provide a useful normative framework to analyse such agreements.
nvestor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) is an arbitration mechanism to settle disputes between foreign investors and host-states. Seemingly a technical issue in private international law, ISDS procedures have recently become a matter of public concern and the target of political resistance, due to the power they grant to foreign investors in matters of public policies in the countries they invest in. This article examines the practice of ISDS through the lenses of liberal-statist theories of international justice, which value self-determination. It argues that the investor-state arbitration system illustrates how liberal-statist theories of international distributive justice ought to care about relative socioeconomic disadvantage, contra the sufficiency principle that they typically defend. The sufficiency principle draws on a questionable conception of the freedom that self-determination consists in.
Readers of Hannah Arendt’s now classic formulation of the statelessness problem in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism abound at a moment when the number of stateless peoples worldwide continues to rise exponentially. Along with statelessness, few concepts in Arendt scholarship have spawned such a volume of literature, and perhaps none have provoked as much interest outside of the field of philosophy, as ‘the right to have rights.’ Interpreting this enigmatic term exposes the heart of our beliefs about the nature of the political and has important consequences for how we practice politics on a global scale because it implicitly takes plural human beings, and not the citizen, as its subjects. Arendt’s conceptualization of this problem remains unsurpassed in its diagnosis of the political situation of statelessness, as well as its intimate description of the human cost of what she refers to as ‘world loss,’ a phenomenon that the prevailing human rights and global justice discourse does not take into account. And yet, as an alternative framework for thinking about global politics, the right to have rights resists easy interpretation, let alone practical application.
The focus of this contribution is on the mode of capitalism within the industrialized sectors of "emerging markets". Particularly in the context of the rise of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) this question has gained considerable importance, also for the development of the world economy as a whole. The core question is whether the type of capitalism within these economies is similar to the capitalist variety of the triad, or diverges in more or less permanent ways. The article gives a preliminary answer to this question, by developing a rough sketch of a "BRIC" model of capitalism and illustrating this model with the case of Brazil. In terms of theory, the article extends the Comparative Capitalism (CC) perspective to the BRICs. On the one side, the focus is on the classical questions of CC, i.e. the determinants of economic development and the differences to other types of capitalism, on the other side the relationship between these varieties and social inequality. It argues that the "state-permeated market economies" of the BRICs rely on clans as a mode of social coordination. As demonstrated by the case of Brazil, this type of capitalism can be quite successful, but is based on a highly unequal distribution of economic and political resources.
This article reports the results of a replication of Bobbitt-Zeher’s 2007 article "The Gender Income Gap and the Role of Education". Models that emulate the original specifications (by and large) reproduce the original results. However, models that adhere to Bobbitt-Zeher’s theory concerning the gendered effect of family formation call into question her finding that "values appear to matter only modestly, while family formation has virtually no effect on the income gap".
There is a consensus that transnational soft governance has unleashed the forces of change in higher education. However, individual national HE systems are still anchored in country-specific regulatory regimes, which reflect national-historical, institutional, and cultural developments. Against this background, three crucial questions guide our study: How does the state react to transnational pressures for change? How is transnationally inspired policy change ‘digested’ by the preexisting country-specific governance structures? And to what extent have national HE systems converged on a common governance model? To address these questions, we conduct a multilevel comparative analysis of developments in Germany, France, and Italy. We first break down the concept of higher education governance into sub-dimensions and derive concrete policy indicators for three historically embedded governance ideal types. Drawing on historical institutionalism and institutional isomorphism, we explore how historical legacies and transnational communication have impacted policy pathways over the past 30 years. We graphically illustrate the policy trajectories using our ‘governance triangles’, which encompass the balance of power between multiple actors, including the state and universities, university management and the academic profession, and external stakeholders.
his articles discusses and contextualises tripleC's republication of Franz L. Neumann's essay Anxiety and Politics. It provides some background information on Neumann's life and works. The essay ascertains that in the age of new nationalisms, rising right-wing authoritarianism and authoritarian capitalism, Franz L Neumann's works can help us to critically understand contemporary society.