Suchergebnisse

Les transformations profondes des marchés du travail européens dans les dernières décennies, sans remettre en cause la nature anthropologique du travail, ont fortement remodelé, en comparaison du XXème siècle, la forme historique que prennent les activités productives contemporaines. Parmi ces transformations, l'une d'elle mérite une attention particulière : la « flexibilisation » du marché du travail, en France et en Allemagne, et ses effets. Pour décrire ce processus et ces résultats, la notion originaire de la sociologie française de « précarité », voire de « précarisation », constitue un outil particulièrement heuristique. Non que cet outil, né des sciences sociales françaises puisse être utilisé tel quel pour mener une comparaison internationale des manières dont elle se traduit dans les représentations de ceux qui en font l'expérience. En effet, la notion de précarité constitue autant une catégorie du sens commun – utilisée par des acteurs politiques, médiatiques. – qu'une catégorie scientifique dont les acceptions sont de plus particulièrement nombreuses.

During recent decades, the arenas of political decision-making have increasingly shifted from national governments to intergovernmental and transnational political forums. At the same time, the number and relevance of non-state actors in international politics is steadily growing. These trends have led political scientists to study and theorize about new forms of democracy beyond the national political arenas (Archibugi 2004, Bexell et al. 2010, Nasström 2010). However, democracy beyond the nation state is difficult to conceptualize with the idea of an institutionalized democracy within the borders of nation-states. Instead, many political scientists emphasize the role of civil society actors as a cure for the democratic deficit in inter-national politics (Steffek & Nanz 2008). Yet, normative and empirical problems arise over the extent of access, selection and role of civil society actors in international organizations (Tallberg et al. 2013). Furthermore, the normative relevance of transnational civil society actors makes it necessary to study their own democratic legitimacy. While international organizations are mostly institutionalized and hierarchical governing bodies, the ever growing diffuse conglomerate of non-state actors is characterized by fluid structures, blurry boundaries and a multi-level setting of interaction (Keck & Sikkink 1998). Thus, in studying democratic practice in transnational civil society networks, we must ask: How institutionalized do political practices have to be and how flexible can they be, to still be considered democratic? Normative theorists reconceptualized democracy in the light of this changing context (Bohman 2007). Recent concepts of participatory, deliberative and representative democracy attempt to reconfigure existing democratic institutions through procedural elements (Fung & Wright 2003, Dryzek 2006) or innovative forms of representation (Phillips 1998, Mansbridge 2003, Castiglione & Warren 2006). This emerging theoretical framework is well suited to analyze the extent, to which democratic practices exist within transnational civil society networks. By applying the concept of practice (Giddens 1984, Schatzki et al. 2005) as a bridging tool between the empirical reality of fluid, temporary and open transnational civil society networks on the one hand and the institution-oriented democratic theory on the other hand, this study explores the extent to which democratic practice develops in a field that lacks traditional institutions to guarantee citizen participation. As innovative transnational actors, civil society networks can bring up new forms of democratic practice (see Polletta 2006) that can potentially inspire the debate about transnational democracy as such. This study, with its innovate approach, hopes to invigorate the debate about transnational democracy and transnational civil society, which has stalled to some degree in recent years. The study is divided into three parts; first, a conceptual part that clarifies the question of how democracy as practice can be theoretically conceptualized in transnational civil society net-works, which is followed by an empirical exploration of political practices in the transnational civil society networks. In this second part, the main question is how participation, representation and deliberation practice develops in transnational civil society networks. Two cases of transnational civil society networks, the Clean Clothes Campaign and Friends of the Earth, are analyzed to provide insights into the democratic practice within transnational civil society. In the final part, the empirical findings are evaluated in the light of the outlined concepts of democratic theory in order to explore how democratic these political practices actually are. The study identifies implicit and in-process practices of democratic norms in transnational civil society networks. Political practice in transnational civil society networks can become demo-cratic through empowerment measures and trustful relationships. However, deliberate demo-cratic practice can be impeded by disembodied digital communication and complex decision-making. The study explores how new forms of democratic practice emerge in the interaction between political actors and the structural environments of actors and networks. ; Während der letzten Jahrzehnte haben sich die Arenen politischer Entscheidungsfindung immer mehr von nationalen Regierungen hinein in intergouvernmentale und transnationale politische Foren verschoben. Zur gleichen Zeit sind die Anzahl und Relevanz von Nichtregierungsorganisationen erheblich gestiegen. Diese Entwicklungen haben PolitikwissenschaftlerInnen dazu angeregt über neue Formen von Demokratie jenseits des Nationalstaats zu forschen und konzeptionell zu arbeiten (Archibugi 2004, Bexell et al. 2010, Nasström 2010). Demokratie jenseits des Nationalstaates ist allerdings sehr schwierig zu konzeptionalisieren im Rahmen einer institutionalisierten Auffassung von nationalstaatlicher Demokratie. Dahingegen haben viele ForscherInnen die Rolle von Zivilgesellschaft als ein Heilmittel gegen das Demokratiedefizit internationaler Politik hervorgehoben (Steffek & Nanz 2008). Hier entstehen allerdings auch normative und empirische Probleme mit dem Umfang von Zugang, Auswahl und Rolle zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure in internationalen Organisationen (Tallberg et al. 2013). Darüber hinaus macht diese normative Relevanz transnationaler Zivilgesellschaft es notwendig auch deren demokratische Legitimität zu überprüfen. Während internationale Organisationen mehrheitlich sehr institutionalisiert und hierarchisch aufgebaute Regierungsorgane sind, ist das immer mehr anwachsende Konglomerat an Nichtregierungsorganisationen durch fluide Strukturen, aufgeweichte Grenzen und Mehrebeneninteraktionen geprägt (Keck & Sikkink 1998). Somit müssen wir beim Studium demokratischer Praxis in transnationaler Zivilgesellschaft fragen, wie institutionalisiert oder eben flexibel politische Praxis dort sein soll, um als demokratisch anerkannt zu werden. Einige normative TheoretikerInnen haben Demokratie bereits im Lichte dieser Veränderungen konzeptionalisiert (Bohman 2007). Gegenwärtige Konzepte partizpativer, deliberativer und repräsentativer Demokratie versuchen existierende demokratische Institutionen durch prozedurale Elemente zu rekonfigurieren (Fung & Wright 2003, Dryzek 2006) oder innovative Formen der Repräsentation zu konzipieren (Phillips 1998, Mansbridge 2003, Castiglione & Warren 2006). Dieser wachsende theoretische Rahmen ist sehr gut geeignet um demokratische Praxis in transnationalen zivilgesellschaftlichen Netzwerken zu untersuchen. Mithilfe des Praxiskonzepts (Giddens 1984, Schatzki et al. 2005) als Brücke zwischen der empirischen Realität fluider, temporärer und offener transnationaler zivilgesellschaftlicher Netzwerke auf der einen Seite und institutionen-orientierter Demokratietheorie auf der anderen Seite, will diese Studie erforschen, wie sich demokratische Praxis in einem Feld fast ohne institutionelle Verankerung, entwickelt. Als innovative transnationale Akteure können zivilgesellschaftliche Netzwerke auch neue Formen demokratischer Praxis ´erfinden´ (siehe Polletta 2006), die die Debatte um transnationale Demokratie inspirieren können. Diese Studie hofft deswegen die etwas stagnierte Debatte um transnationale Demokratie und Zivilgesellschaft mit diesem Beitrag beleben zu können. Die Studie ist in drei Teile geteilt; der erste theoretisch- konzeptionelle Teil beschäftigt sich mit den Möglichkeiten einer Konzeptionalisierung von Demokratie als Praxis. Daran anschließend folgt der zweite Teil der empirischen Erforschung politischer Praxis in transnationalen zivilgesellschaftlichen Netzwerken. In diesem zweiten Teil stellt sich die Hauptfrage nach der Entwicklung von Praktiken der Partizipation, Repräsentation und Deliberation in transnationalen zivilgesellschaftlichen Netzwerken. Zwei Fälle werden analysiert: die Clean Clothes Campaign und Friends of the Earth. Im Schlussteil werden die empirischen Ergebnisse in Hinsicht auf die demokratietheoretischen Überlegungen im ersten Teil diskutiert entlang der Frage, wie demokratisch die vorgefundenen politischen Praktiken einzuschätzen sind. Die Studie identifiziert eine implizite und prozedurale Praxis demokratischer Normen. Politische Praxis in transnationalen zivilgesellschaftlichen Netzwerken kann vor allem demokratisch werden durch Empowerment und vertrauensvolle Beziehungen. Trotzdem können z.B. auch deliberative Praktiken durch entkörperlichte, digitale Kommunikation und komplexe Entscheidungsverfahren behindert werden. Diese Studie untersucht, wie neue Formen demokratischer Praxis entstehen in der Interaktion zwischen politischen Akteuren und den strukturellen Verankerungen von Akteuren und Netzwerken.

There is a general consensus that fostering higher education is important for enhancing the human capital of a country. In turn, the quality of human capital is determined by the quality of higher education. In transition countries such as Kazakhstan, however, the quality of education does not meet international standards. Thus, student migration to developed countries such as Germany plays a particular role for enhancing the human capital stock of Kazakhstan and, consequently, for improving the country's economic competitiveness. However, the human capital embodied in former student migrants can get lost for Kazakhstan if the professionals are not employed in their home country according to their obtained qualifications or stay abroad for a longer-term temporary or for a permanent residence while exercising professional activities that are not related to the well-being of Kazakhstan. To minimize the economic disadvantages of student migration, the state must flexibly manage the relevant migration processes. How such a management should be designed based on the potential effects of student migration on the human capital stock of Kazakhstan, is the subject of this study.

This article explores two related questions. First, why has Marxist social theory been in sharp decline? Second, is Marxism still of value as a source of explanatory insights in the contemporary period? The author addresses the first question in terms of Marxism's decline as a specific resource in the study of China and as a general mode of analysis within social science and he provides a number of interconnected reasons, based primarily in the sociology of knowledge. These reasons for decline allow the argument to be made that Marxism still has something to offer because none of the reasons necessarily entails that Marxist concepts need lack explanatory relevance. This leads into the second question where the author explores how the realist movement in philosophy has been used by Marxists to provide an analytical underpinning that is compatible with Marx's work and where the author also discusses some aspects of contemporary China in terms of Marxist ways of thinking. These are then placed in an international context. The argument is part of a wider project to develop an applied philosophy of area studies. (Crit Asian Stud/DÜI)

A decade of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, fast-rising rivals and unrealized global aspirations has called America's global role into question as never before. Will the US long continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it sustain the world-shaping grand strategy it's followed since the dawn of the Cold War? While opinions on answers to these questions are common, answers grounded in scholarship are hard to find given the lack of data and theory relevant to the 21st century. In America Abroad, Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth, two of the nation's leading international relations scholars, fill this gap with a bracing assessment of contemporary America's shifting global role. They show that United States' position as a peerless superpower will be secure long into the future, and turn to the most pressing grand strategic question of the day: How would America's interests fare if the United States decided to disengage from the world? Their answer runs counter to a rising chorus of calls from many academics and policy makers for US the "come home": retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. America Abroad is not, however, an unalloyed endorsement for the foreign policy status quo. By providing a new way to think about the United States' position in the world, Brooks and Wohlforth move beyond the unrealistic dichotomies that characterize much of the contemporary debate. Although rise of China will not soon end America's career as the sole superpower, it is a significant shift that alters the strategic landscape and demands adjustments. The authors develop a distinct position in the evolving debate on US foreign policy, now torn between calls for a more expansive style of global leadership that seeks to remake the world in America's image and demands for it to retrench and leave the world's troubles behind. Their findings support America remaining globally engaged but focusing on three objectives that have been at the core of US foreign policy since the Cold War's dawn: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and sustaining institutionalized cooperation that advances America's interests. Combining insightful analysis and accessible prose, America Abroad will force us to rethink our assumptions about the nature and utility of US power in the global arena. --