Suchergebnisse

This article explains how actors' ability to bargain successfully in order to advance their institutional preferences has changed over time as a function of the particular institutional context. Actors use their bargaining power under given institutional rules in order to shift the existing balance between legislation and delegation, and shift the rules governing delegation in their favour between formal treaty changes. A collective actor's preferences over delegation is a function of whether the actor has more ability to influence policy through delegation or through legislation. The degree to which a specific actor's preferences can prevail (in a setting in which different actors have different preferences) will depend upon its bargaining power under existing institutional rules, i.e. its ability to impede or veto policy in order to change the division between legislation and delegation and the rules of delegation. The primary focus in this article is on choice over procedure, i.e. the battles over whether or not delegation or legislation should be employed. A secondary focus is on change in procedure. The article examines the evolution of the debate over comitology and implementation over five key periods and scrutinises how actors within these periods have sought to shift the balance of legislation and delegation and the rules of delegation according to their preferences. Adapted from the source document.

"Das Konzept der Pfadabhängigkeit wird im Rahmen neo-institutionalistischer Analysen äußerst deterministisch verwendet. Daher haben Untersuchungen, die auf diesem Ansatz beruhen, Schwierigkeiten, Wandel zu erklären bzw. vorauszusagen. Das der Theorie der Pfadabhängigkeit zugrunde liegende Modell der Polya-Urne geht jedoch davon aus, dass verschiedene Pfade möglich sind. Es lässt sich zeigen, dass Akteure auf diese Pfade zurückzugreifen können, wenn sie Veränderungen für erforderlich halten. Das in diesem Discussion Paper verwandte Modell integriert einen Bayesschen Entscheidungsträger, der in Kenntnis der die Situation steuernden Parameter auf eine sich ändernde Umwelt reagiert. So kann untersucht werden, wie Wandel mit Prozessen wie den folgenden einhergehen kann: Verwendung früherer oder redundanter institutioneller Repertoires; Erfahrungstransfer über Handlungsräume hinweg; Erfahrungstransfer von anderen Akteuren und durch Netzwerke strukturierter Beziehungen; Entstehung von Problemlösungen, die als "die eine optimale Möglichkeit" wahrgenommen werden. Fazit der Betrachtung ist, dass die in der neo-institutionalistischen Forschung verwendeten Typologien einer Anpassung bedürfen, damit diejenigen Fallmerkmale, die sich nicht in den vorgefassten Analyserahmen eines "Typs" einfügen lassen, nicht als "Rauschen" außer Acht bleiben, sondern als potentielle Ressourcen für Veränderungen angemessen analysiert werden." [Autorenreferat]

'Dieser Beitrag plädiert dafür, inter-organisatorische Entscheidungsregeln und ihre Auswirkungen auf intra-organisatorische Prozesse stärker in den Blick zu nehmen. Wir argumentieren, dass ein exogener Wandel der makroinstitutionellen Regeln von formellen und sequentiellen zu informellen und simultanen Interaktionen die Einflussmöglichkeiten einzelner Akteure innerhalb von Organisationen verändert. Bestimmte Akteure, insbesondere 'Schnittstellen'-Akteure, die den organisationsinternen Informationsfluss steuern, gewinnen dadurch an Einfluss. Doch wie reagieren Organisationen auf eine solche Veränderung der internen Machtverhältnisse? Organisationen, in denen die Beziehungen gegenüber externen Akteuren zentral koordiniert sind, werden mit einer effektiven Strategie der internen Regelanpassung reagieren. Organisationen, die eine Vielzahl untereinander wenig koordinierter Beziehungen zu externen Akteuren unterhalten, werden eine solche interne Regelanpassung dagegen nur sehr schwer bewerkstelligen können. Wir illustrieren unser generelles theoretisches Argument am Beispiel des Zusammenwirkens von Europäischem Parlament und Ministerrat im Rahmen des Verfahrens der Mitentscheidung und der daraus resultierenden intra-organisatorischen Effekte.' (Autorenreferat)

Uses of new media in the context of the Arab Spring have attracted scholarly attention from a wide array of disciplines. Amid the anecdotes and speculation, most of the available empirical research in this area has examined how new media have enabled participants and spectators to produce and circulate protest-related content. In contrast, the current study investigates patterns of consumption of Arab Spring–related content using a unique data set constructed by combining archived Twitter content with metadata drawn from the URL shortening service Bit.ly. This data set allows us to explore two critical research questions: First, were links posted to Twitter (among other platforms) followed primarily by individuals inside the affected country, within the broader Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region or by those outside the region and country? And second, who attracted more attention online: protesters and other nonelite citizens or traditional news organizations? Our findings suggest that the vast majority of attention to Arab Spring content came from outside of the MENA region and, furthermore, that mass media, rather than citizen media, overwhelmingly held the world's attention during the protests. We thus conclude that Twitter was broadly useful as an information channel for non-MENA onlookers but less so for protesters on the ground.

The contributors to this forum all draw significantly from pragmatist philosophy and social theory for making sense of international politics. Collectively, we affirm the value of pragmatist work beyond metatheory and methodology, both politically and epistemically—that is, as both a moral project and an explanatory one. Indeed, we are especially united on the notion that pragmatism "bridges" the divide between these things, and several contributors focus their discussion on how. However, we differ in what exactly it means to offer a distinctly pragmatist explanation or a "substantive" pragmatist theory, as well as in how pragmatism allows us to navigate the analytical and ethical challenges of the field. Over ten years ago, an earlier forum in this journal helped establish that pragmatism had something to offer; with over a decade of scholarship and reflection since, we revisit and expand on the question of how to deliver on it.

Political scientists have conventionally assumed that achieving democracy is a one-way ratchet. Only very recently has the question of "democratic backsliding" attracted any research attention. We argue that democratic instability is best understood with tools from complexity science. The explanatory power of complexity science arises from several features of complex systems. Their relevance in the context of democracy is discussed. Several policy recommendations are offered to help (re)stabilize current systems of representative democracy. ; (VLID)5394457

Political scientists have conventionally assumed that achieving democracy is a one-way ratchet. Only very recently has the question of "democratic backsliding" attracted any research attention. We argue that democratic instability is best understood with tools from complexity science. The explanatory power of complexity science arises from several features of complex systems. Their relevance in the context of democracy is discussed. Several policy recommendations are offered to help (re)stabilize current systems of representative democracy. ; ISSN:2662-9992

The idea that democracy is under threat, after being largely dormant for at least 40 years, is looming increasingly large in public discourse. Complex systems theory offers a range of powerful new tools to analyse the stability of social institutions in general, and democracy in particular. What makes a democracy stable? And which processes potentially lead to instability of a democratic system? This paper offers a complex systems perspective on this question, informed by areas of the mathematical, natural, and social sciences. We explain the meaning of the term 'stability' in different disciplines and discuss how laws, rules, and regulations, but also norms, conventions, and expectations are decisive for the stability of a social institution such as democracy. ; ISSN:0143-0807 ; ISSN:1361-6404