Search results

Während Historiker bei der Beschäftigung mit den großen Philosophen, Staatsmännern und Künstlern der Antike in vielen Fällen ein detailliertes Bild zu deren Leben und Persönlichkeit aus zeitgenössischen Quellen entwerfen können, muss sich der rechtsgeschichtlich interessierte Romanist mit nicht viel mehr als einem Namen zufrieden geben. Denn neben einigen kargen Fakten über Herkunft und politische Karriere ist uns von den römischen Juristen nichts als der Niederschlag ihrer Entscheidungstätigkeit überliefert. So stellt die Untersuchung dieser Texte auf ihre rhetorischen und methodischen Eigenarten die einzige Möglichkeit dar, den Autoren als Rechtswissenschaftlern und individuellen Charakteren ein Stück weit näher zu kommen. Doch hat sich in den vier Jahrzehnten nach Horaks großer Studie zu den Entscheidungsbegründungen der veteres das Verhältnis der rechtsgeschichtlichen Abhandlungen mit methodologischen Bezügen im Vergleich zu den vielen Arbeiten »über minuziöse Teilprobleme« nicht wesentlich verändert, ist der erhoffte »Wandel des Interesses« an Methodenfragen ausgeblieben. Zu Leben und Werk des im zweiten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert unter Antoninus Pius und den divi fratres tätigen Konsiliarjuristen Ulpius Marcellus ist das Wenige, was aus den juristischen und sonstigen Quellen geschlossen werden kann, an anderer Stelle bereits festgehalten und noch einiges mehr spekuliert worden. Die vorliegende Arbeit widmet sich der Erforschung seines Vorgehens bei der Begründung einer juristischen Entscheidung. Sie soll in erster Linie als Ergänzung der Arbeiten über die Argumentationsweise der älteren Jurisprudenz, des Iuventius Celsus und des Salvius Iulianus verstanden werden. -- Aus der Einleitung

In recent decades, Western nations have increasingly implemented encompassing welfare state reforms that try to establish equality through social programs and governmental intervention rather than direct redistribution of funds. In this book, Christoph Arndt examines the political ramifications of reforming deeply entrenched welfare states through a careful comparative analysis of four European countries that recalibrated their system of social protection under social democratic governments. Arndt discovers that the "third way" has produced a setback for social democrats and that the nature and scale of this setback is contingent on each country's electoral system.

1.Introduction --1.1Empirical puzzle --1.2The arguments in brief --1.3Structure of the book --2Theoretical Background --2.1The political-economic and societal background to Third Way policies --Social Democracy's transformation towards the Third Way --2.2Social policy and the welfare state as a base for social democratic alignment --2.3Welfare state reform as a catalyst for partisan dealignment --Comparison of traditional social democratic and Third Way social policy --2.4Decommodification, social class and conceptualising the social democratic core constituency --2.5Political system, party competition and welfare reforms --The impact of the electoral system for the electoral effects of the reforms --Competitor parties for social democracy after Third Way reforms under PR.

In all advanced Western nations, policy-makers have implemented encompassing welfare state reforms in recent decades breaking with past welfare arrangements. In particular, social democracy engaged in significant policy change under the Third Way paradigm and broke with its traditional reputation on welfare that had built the ties with the core constituency in the 20th century. The Electoral Consequences of Third Way Welfare State Reforms: Social Democracy's Transformation and its Political Costs provides a comparative study of the electoral consequences of Third Way welfare state reforms. The book demonstrates that Third Way reforms went against the social policy preferences of social democracy's core voters and indeed produced an electoral setback for social democrats at the ballots. Moreover, and accounting for cross-national variation, the analysis shows that the nature of the setback is contingent on the electoral system and the party competition social democrats face when reforming the welfare state. - Dit boek analyseert de electorale gevolgen van de hervormingen in de welvaartsstaat in vier liberaal sociaaldemocratische landen in Europa. Deze zogenaamde 'Derde Weg-sociaaldemocraten' hervormden de welvaartsstaat zodanig dat een deel van het sociaaldemocratische electoraat zich definitief van hen afkeerde. Dit is de belangrijkste conclusie van dit boek, waarvoor vergelijkend onderzoek werd verricht in Zweden, Duitsland, Denemarken en Groot-Brittannië.

The 2015 election to the Danish Folketing saw yet another change of government . Despite gains for the liberal-conservative Venstre, the incumbent centre-right government led by Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Venstre) lost its majority due to substantial losses of the Danish People's Party and the Liberal Alliance . The new Danish government is a social democratic single party minority government led by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen . This government is tolerated by the Social Liberals, the Socialist People's Party as well as the left radical Unity List and constitutes the clearest left-wing majority since the 1971 election . The centre-right camp was split on the tax issue during the whole election period and punished at the ballots despite a sound economy and policy gains on immigration . The Social Democrats benefited from their more restrictive immigration policy by gaining votes from the centre-right parties . They now command the first left-wing majority since the turn of the millennium . However, the ideological differences on immigration policy within the leftist camp will not make governing easier for Frederiksen's single party minority government . Moreover, the new party "Nye Borgerlige" is the first party to the right of the Danish People's Party since 1998 in the new Folketing that now consists of ten parties . [ZParl, vol . 50 (2019), no . 4, pp . 777 - 790]

Since Carmines and Stimson's seminal work, the concept of issue evolution has become a common theoretical toolkit to examine and explain polarization around cultural issues and partisan realignment in the United States. However, very few studies outside the United States have applied the concept of issue evolution to explain electoral change and realignment around new issues at national elections over time. Analyzing whether and how Carmines and Stimson's concept travels to electoral change in a multiparty system would provide more theoretical leverage and create empirical knowledge on the logic of issue evolution outside the United States and also whether the logic of electoral change differs from U.S.-style two-party systems. This article applies the issue evolution concept to a multidimensional multiparty system using micro-level data from 1971 to 2011 in combination with data on elite-level polarization to demonstrate that partisan realignment in Denmark follows an issue evolution process with niche parties as main drivers. Moreover, niche party polarization on the new dimension of conflict has a stronger effect on vote choice than mainstream party polarization.

Issue evolution is a well-established theoretical perspective in the analysis of long-term party competition and partisanship in the US. However, this perspective has rarely been used to analyze political elite effects on partisan polarization in European multiparty systems. Consequently, I apply the issue evolution perspective to polarization in a European multiparty system. I find an emergence of cultural issues in Denmark, where mass level polarization on cultural issues followed elite level polarization. Unlike two-party systems, niche parties drive issue evolution on the elite level, which is then followed by niche partisan polarization and, finally, mainstream party adaption. The findings illustrate the mechanisms of issue evolution in a European-style multiparty system and the role of niche parties.

Recent theoretical advances in the welfare state literature have outlined the differences between labour market- and life course-related schemes as centre-right parties have difficulties in enacting retrenchment on life course-related schemes because these concern every voter. In contrast, the textbook risk profile of centre-right parties' electorates allows them to cutback on labour market-related schemes as these parties get negligible support from workers and low-income voters. Conducting a comparative case study of recent Danish and Swedish centre-right governments, this article analyses the stylized assumptions on the party level by comparing two similar centre-right governments, which differed in their voter coalitions' risk profile. I first argue that centre-right governments are generally constrained by the popular entrenchment of the universal welfare state when it comes to life course-related welfare schemes. Second, I argue that the leeway on labour market-related schemes is contingent on the actual risk profile of the centre-right's electorate, and thereby move beyond the stylized assumptions from recent literature. In this respect, the Danish centre-right did, in contrast to its Swedish counterpart, gain power with an unusual high support among working-class voters which constrained its latitude on labour market-related schemes. I find that the Danish centre-right governments after 2001 acted with bound hands thanks to its high working-class backing, and refrained from outright cutbacks on both labour market- and life course-related schemes until 2010 except for labour market outsiders. In contrast, the Swedish centre-right had a much lower working-class backing and therefore engaged in some outright cutbacks of labour market-related schemes such as unemployment benefits directly after taking office 2006. The centre-right's actual voter coalition's risk profile is thus an important determinant for its public policies and its leeway for policy-seeking.

Issue evolution is a well-established theoretical perspective in the analysis of long-term party competition and partisanship in the US. However, this perspective has rarely been used to analyze political elite effects on partisan polarization in European multiparty systems. Consequently, I apply the issue evolution perspective to polarization in a European multiparty system. I find an emergence of cultural issues in Denmark, where mass level polarization on cultural issues followed elite level polarization. Unlike two-party systems, niche parties drive issue evolution on the elite level, which is then followed by niche partisan polarization and, finally, mainstream party adaption. The findings illustrate the mechanisms of issue evolution in a European-style multiparty system and the role of niche parties.