Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article presents an overview of some of the main findings from our analysis of the Berggruen Governance Index for the 2000–2019 period. It first examines overall governance performance across world regions, singles out general trends and identifies top and bottom performers. It then briefly reviews the comparative governance performance of world powers like the United States, Brazil, China, major European countries, India and Russia as well as other selected countries in the post‐Soviet space. Finally, we address more analytic questions to show the versatility of the index for hypothesis testing and theoretical purposes.

In this interview, Helmut K. Anheier and Michael Mann first discuss Mann's work on the sociology of power, especially the types and sources of power. They then focus on the rise and fall of empires and his analysis of wars, as well as current international tensions, especially US-China relations and a revisionist Russia. Throughout, they focus on longer-term economic and sociopolitical developments that may affect the future of the liberal order.

In this interview, Helmut K Anheier and Andreas Wimmer discuss his work on methodological nationalism, nation building, democracy, war, and longer-term economic, socio-political developments. They also explore the post-colonial debate and the decolonization movement in the academy. They touch upon foresight methods and review the state of the social sciences, in particular anthropology and sociology.

In this interview, Steffen Mau and Helmut K. Anheier discuss Professor Mau's writing on postcommunist East Germany, the nature of modern borders, the quantification of the social, and the current state of the social sciences. They explore the lingering social cleavages in unified Germany, discuss how borders have expanded and transformed since the end of the Cold War, and ask what changes are needed to keep the social sciences relevant for the twenty-first century.

In this interview, Mary Kaldor and Helmut K. Anheier examine the state of Eastern Europe thirty years after the fall of communism; they explore the differences between old wars and new wars, the relevance of Clausewitz in the field of international relations today, the problem of methodological nationalism, and what the social sciences mean today. They also talk about the impact of neoliberalism, the state of democracy, and the role of civil society.

AbstractDahrendorf´s Quandary, an early formulation of the Rodrik Trilemma, stipulates that maintaining economic competitiveness requires countries either to adopt measures detrimental to the cohesion of civil society, or to restrict civil liberties and political participation. The global financial and economic crisis of 2008–09 offers a test case for the applicability of the Quandary. We do so by examining economic, political and social stressors afflicting countries during the period of 2009–2014 relative to the severity and type of crises they experienced, and the ensuing political consequences for economy policy, democracy and society prevalent in 2019. We find that the Quandary does not apply uniformly across advanced market economies. Instead we detect distinct clusters that vary in their intensity of the tension the Quandary stipulates. We also find a consistent and positive relationship between Quandary intensity and crisis severity, yet obtain inconclusive results when looking at the relationship with current trends. The findings suggest that the crisis preparedness and the actual governance capability of countries to address the negative effects of economic globalization are key to managing the tensions inherent in the Dahrendorf Quandary and the Rodrik Trilemma.

Dahrendorf´s Quandary, an early formulation of the Rodrik Trilemma, stipulates that maintaining economic competitiveness requires countries either to adopt measures detrimental to the cohesion of civil society, or to restrict civil liberties and political participation. The global financial and economic crisis of 2008–09 offers a test case for the applicability of the Quandary. We do so by examining economic, political and social stressors afflicting countries during the period of 2009–2014 relative to the severity and type of crises they experienced, and the ensuing political consequences for economy policy, democracy and society prevalent in 2019. We find that the Quandary does not apply uniformly across advanced market economies. Instead we detect distinct clusters that vary in their intensity of the tension the Quandary stipulates. We also find a consistent and positive relationship between Quandary intensity and crisis severity, yet obtain inconclusive results when looking at the relationship with current trends. The findings suggest that the crisis preparedness and the actual governance capability of countries to address the negative effects of economic globalization are key to managing the tensions inherent in the Dahrendorf Quandary and the Rodrik Trilemma. While Dahrendorf seems to assume that societies may be more likely to abandon liberal democracy for the sake of preserving social cohesion, Rodrik seems to lean towards the expectation that countries will roll back globalization in order to maintain the other two elements.

In this interview, Claus Offe and Helmut Anheier examine the state of Eastern Europe 30 years after the fall of communism, explore the relationship between capitalism and democracy, and discuss what the social sciences mean today. They talk about the stresses liberalism is currently experiencing, current political developments in the US and UK, and the current relevance the fields of sociology and economics.

Zusammenfassung
Das Verhältnis zwischen Staat und Zivilgesellschaft ist in letzter Zeit komplexer geworden. In einigen Ländern hat sich das Verhältnis derart verschlechtert, dass von einem shrinking space für die Zivilgesellschaft gesprochen wird. Diese Diagnose gilt jedoch hauptsächlich für autoritäre und illiberale politische Systeme, die der Zivilgesellschaft mit Repression begegnen. Zivilgesellschaftliche Räume schrumpfen jedoch auch in Demokratien: weniger durch direkte Unterdrückung, sondern durch eine politische Stagnation, die durch eine politische Vernachlässigung der Zivilgesellschaft verursacht wird. Diese führt zu einer schleichenden Erosion zivilgesellschaftlicher Kapazitäten und stellt eine zunehmende gesellschaftspolitische Herausforderung dar. Als Gegenmaßnahme plädieren wir für eine aktive Reformpolitik, wobei neuere Modelle der rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen und Regulierungen im Mittelpunkt stehen sollten, die auf eine bessere Fassung der funktionalen Differenzierung zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen zielen.

We believe the papers in this Special Issue provide important insights into critical policy issues and can help guide efforts to strengthen international economic and financial governance.

AbstractWhat role will the EU play on the global stage? The struggle of some of its members in the current economic crisis, its apparent inability to punch its political weight in international negotiations (e.g. the climate summit in Warsaw in 2013) or play a dominant part in international crisis management (the Arab Spring, Syria) cast doubt on the capabilities of the EU as a global player. In order to regain its strength, the EU has to deal with pressing economic and political questions. It has to provide a credible and feasible road map for economic recovery and social cohesion. At the same time, it has to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of European governance without risking its legitimacy. To preserve its actor capacity, the EU must make sure that the (presently unequally distributed) growth potential stemming from research and development serves the economic recovery of the union as a whole. At the same time, successful efforts to make European governance more efficient must be accompanied by additional safeguard measure to ensure its legitimacy.