Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (172) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (89)
- Part of a Book (32)
- Working Paper (17)
- Contribution to a Periodical (10)
- Editorship book (8)
- Book (6)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
- Review (3)
- Lecture (1)
- Journal (1)
Keywords
- Germany (3)
- Jugend (3)
- Rente (3)
- Soziologie (3)
- Adolescence (2)
- EU-Turkey refugee deal (2)
- HBSC (2)
- Multilevel analysis (2)
- Turkey-EU relations (2)
- Variable renewables (2)
A Rejoinder by the Author
(2016)
The chapter shows how European internal market regulation expanded and was transformed from a limited and often non-binding set of policies to an integrated and wide-ranging framework. Incremental but profound change was possible because critical junctures, in particular judgments by the European Court of Justice, allowed the European Commission and its allies to advance new policy proposals with new default positions. This affected the preferences of major member states, created new coalitions, and also led to the emergence of new actors. Feedback loops reinforced the orientation of previous agreements and created changes that most observers would have qualified as impossible three or four decades earlier.
In recent debates about inequality, many have pointed to the predominant position of the finance. This article highlights that structural power, not lobbying resources, are key to explaining variations across countries. It examines finance-government negotiations over national bank rescue schemes during the recent financial crisis. Given the structural power of finance, the variation in bank bailouts across countries cannot be explained by lobbying differences. Instead of observing organized interest intermediation, we can see that disorganization was crucial for the financial industry to get off the hook and let the government carry the burden of stabilizing the economy. Put differently, structural power is strongest when finance remains collectively inactive. In contrast to traditional accounts of the lobbying influence of finance, the comparison highlights that the lack of organization can have crucial redistributive consequences.
Public policies are a set of specific actions intended to solve concrete public problems. Given the specificity of the policy approach, its unit of analysis is the policy itself. This attribute may lead to a myopia problem: to focus on each public policy without studying the whole, or to believe that the set of public policies is, automatically, harmonious. Yet, a series of well-designed and implemented public policies is not equivalent to a set of complementary and self-reinforcing policies that solve complex public issues. In this paper, we analyze three levels of coherence for public policies: internal coherence (the causal theory), coherence among policies in the same policy domain, and coherence across policy domains. We show that internal coherence is not guarantee of external coherence. We use Mexican government programs to exemplify the consequence of incoherent policies.
How can intergroup contact programs affect conflict-ridden communities besides improving the outgroup attitudes of participating individuals? We address this question by examining the effects of an intergroup contact intervention on ingroup dynamics that may mitigate intergroup conflict. We also examine how outgroup attitudes and psychological resources mediate such effects. We present the results from a difference-in-differences design with 149 Jewish and Arab-Palestinian youth, some of whom participated in an intergroup contact and sports program operated by a nongovernmental organizations in Israel. Our main outcome is one’s tendency to censure ingroup members’ provocations toward the outgroup. As expected, we find a positive impact of the program on ingroup censuring. However, this result is only marginally significant. We find a positive effect of program participation on outgroup attitudes among Jewish youth as expected. To our surprise, among Arab-Palestinian youth, we find a negative effect on outgroup attitudes. Exploring the underlying processes and group-based differences further, we find that outgroup regard mediates the effect of intergroup contact on ingroup censuring for Jewish youth. We find no evidence for mediation among Arab-Palestinian youth but a positive association between ingroup censuring and psychological resources. These results suggest that the psychological conditions of ingroup censuring may differ by group. We discuss implications for peace-building interventions in societies with groups in conflict.
This article examines detention of asylum-seekers, more specifically how European Union (EU) law simultaneously constructs the asylum-seeker as a detainable subject, whilst also limiting states’ powers of detention. The power to detain is limited by international refugee and human rights law, but EU law sets more stringent standards. While international refugee law regards the asylum-seeker as a presumptive refugee, EU law seems to take a different view. Nowadays, the legal and physical rite of passage from irregular migrant to asylum-seeker to refugee defines the predicament of refugees who seek protection in the EU. Asylum-seekers are vulnerable to detention as irregular entrants, when they are in transit in search of effective protection, and if they become deportable under the Dublin System. Coercive forms of detention are, too glibly in our view, assumed to be permitted to ensure they cooperate with identification and registration processes. The chapter aims to problematise this detainability of asylum-seekers, examining in particular how their increasing deportability and transferability may increase their detainability. Drawing on empirical examples from the treatment of refugees arriving in the EU in 2015, it suggests that the EU limits on detention need further implementation and institutionalisation.
Safe Country? Says Who?
(2016)
In 1991, Professor Guy S Goodwin-Gill reflected on the emerging safe country of origin (SCO) practices in an editorial in the International Journal of Refugee Law, entitled ‘Safe Country? Says Who?’. This article reflects on developments regarding SCO practices since his prescient editorial, focusing on both Europe, where they originated, and Canada. The article first explores how SCO practices have developed in European law and practice since their inception, including the role of European courts in assessing their legality. This European experience is then contrasted with Canada’s short-lived experiment with its analogous Designated Country of Origin (DCO) system, which, in 2015, was deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Canada.
This chapter compares and contrasts two recent European enactments on particular forms of temporary labour migration: seasonal work and intra-corporate transfers (ICTs). Both the Seasonal Workers Directive (SWD)1 and the ICT Directive (ICTD)2 were adopted in 2014. They are typical of the EU’s piecemeal approach to labour migration, which creates a multiplicity of distinct statuses.3 We frame the comparison in light of our previous work examining the impact of migration law on labour law (section II). By way of general contribution to this collection’s themes, we also offer some observations on the challenges of regulating temporary labour migration under current conditions of globalisation (section III), and seek to explain some of the specificities of the EU’s role in regulating immigration (section IV)