Search results

Under what conditions are people prepared to accept restrictions on their personal freedoms in order to protect their own well-being and health, but above all the well-being and health of others? What do decision-making processes have to look like in order to be regarded as legitimate by citizens? Are there freedoms that people do not want to give up under any circumstances? What role does the democratic quality of a political regime play in these questions, and what is the role of various cultural characteristics?

These questions, which refer to the area of tension between individual liberties and collective welfare, arise with particular urgency in view of the worldwide Corona pandemic, but also with a view to future crises, such as the impending climate catastrophe.

To study these questions, DAPEK surveyed 9,000 respondents from six countries (Germany, Hungary, Japan, Poland, South Korea, and Spain – 1,500 respondents each) in November 2021. Core of the data collection are two survey experiments. First, a conjoint experiment is designed to analyze which restrictions in pandemic countermeasures affect citizen support. Second, a combination of a best-worst-scaling approach with a framing experiment scrutinizes which political decision-making procedures citizens prefer and whether that varies by different societal challenges. The experimental data are flanked by extensive individual-level data, a.o. on demographics, as well as political and cultural value orientations.

DAPEK is a short-term project of the DFG-funded Cluster of Excellence "Contestations of the Liberal Script", which is located at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center, among others.

Keywords: covid-19, value orientations, societal challenges, decision-making process, freedom

This archive includes all data compiled in the course of a systematic review on the association between family demographic processes and in-work poverty that represents the empirical material used in the paper Polizzi, Struffolino, Van Winkle. 2020. "Family Demographic Processes and In-Work Poverty: A Systematic Review." SocArXiv: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zncaq

The systematic review aims at locating empirical results on these associations within a common grid to summarize the findings with respect to five family demographic processes: parental home leaving, cohabitation, parenthood and subsequent births, union formation, and union dissolution. We concentrate on empirical studies on in-work poverty in OECD and EU-28 countries without any restriction on the year of publication.

In the first part of the systematic review, we provide a quantitative review of results from a comparative pool of cross-sectional analyses. In the second part of the systematic review, we perform a narrative review of the literature that pays special attention to recent research implementing a longitudinal design with household panel data and to alternative operationalizations of pivotal variables.

The methods report provides detailed information on all files included in the archive.

The increasing density and entanglement of international law and institutions leads to a growing potential for collisions between norms and rules emanating from different international institutions. It is an open question, however, when actors actually create manifest conflicts about overlapping norms and rules and how – and with what consequences – such conflicts are handled. We therefore utilize the concept of "interface conflicts" (ICs) in which two or more actors express positional differences over the scope or prevalence of different international norms. Building on the findings of the DFG research group OSAIC, we introduce the Interface Conflicts 1.0 dataset, which assembles information on 78 ICs. The dataset provides information on the actors and norms at stake in ICs and focuses specifically on their subsequent handling. It distinguishes co-operative from non-cooperative conflict management and codes the institutional as well as distributional outcomes of all management efforts. For changes from version 1.0 to version 2.0 see Change_log_Interface_Conflicts_2_0.pdf.

The increasing density and entanglement of international law and institutions leads to a growing potential for collisions between norms and rules emanating from different international institutions. It is an open question, however, when actors actually create manifest conflicts about overlapping norms and rules and how – and with what consequences – such conflicts are handled. We therefore utilize the concept of "interface conflicts" (ICs) in which two or more actors express positional differences over the scope or prevalence of different international norms. Building on the findings of the DFG research group OSAIC, we introduce the Interface Conflicts 1.0 dataset, which assembles information on 78 ICs. The dataset provides information on the actors and norms at stake in ICs and focuses specifically on their subsequent handling. It distinguishes co-operative from non-cooperative conflict management and codes the institutional as well as distributional outcomes of all management efforts.