Der andere „amerikanische“ Max Weber: Hans H. Gerths und C. Wright Mills’ <Emphasis Type="Italic">From Max Weber</Emphasis>, dessen deutsche Rezeption und das Konzept der „public sociology“

The reader From Max Weber, published by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills in 1946, has a strong international impact. Its ideas influenced Mills?s later work The sociological imagination in which he makes it clear that the “sociological imagination” can best be found in the works of classical social analysts like Max Weber. Michael Burawoy, who uses the term “public sociology”, based on Mills, therefore also calls Weber an early “public sociologist”. In addition to that he describes the volume by Gerth and Mills as the outstanding collection of Weber?s writings in which the authors offer an interpretation different from that of Talcott Parsons. In Germany Gerth?s and Mills?s book on Weber is almost completely unknown, although it is still mentioned in works by German sociologists published shortly after the Second World War. This is one reason why in Germany Burawoy?s concept of “public sociology” is seen in contrast to the views of Weber. First, the article shows the differences in the interpretation of Weber by Gerth and Mills and by Parsons. Than it describes the early German reception of From Max Weber and looks into the reasons why it was not of greater influence. It will be stressed that the importance of this book lies in the fact, that it can be used to legitimize “public sociology”.     

The Great Disconnect: Global Governance and Localised Conflict in the Cases of India and the EU

Academic scholarship displays a curious disconnect between two trends, connecting peace and governance issues. At the same time when conflicts tended to shift inwards (from inter-state to civil wars), global governance approaches seemed to decentre the management of peace and conflict outwards (from the nation state to international forums). This paper investigates this disjuncture by examining the European Union and India's governance strategies in different conflict contexts. It studies whether their strategies operate close to the global governance model and/or whether they are able to connect with and effectively support local peace initiatives in conflict-ridden areas.     

Interpreting UKIP's ‘Earthquake’ in British Politics: UK Television News Coverage of the 2009 and 2014 EU Election Campaigns

UK broadcasters came under fire for the amount of airtime UKIP and its leader Nigel Farage received after the party won the most votes in the 2014 EU election. Our content analysis of television news during the 2009 and 2014 campaigns found little bias in terms of soundbites, but in the more recent election Farage visually appeared in coverage to a greater degree than other party leaders. Moreover, two core UKIP policies—being in or out of Europe and immigration—dominated coverage in 2014. We suggest the ‘UKIP factor’ and the media's fascination with Nigel Farage help explain why the 2014 campaign was more visible on television news than was the case in 2009 and was largely reported through a Westminster prism. Although television news bulletins attempt to impartially report elections, the 2014 campaign agenda was largely contested on UKIP's ideological terrain and the party's electoral fortunes.     

To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty

Policy makers cannot consider all evidence relevant to policy. They use two shortcuts—emotions and beliefs to understand problems and “rational” ways of establishing the best evidence on solutions—to act quickly in complex, multilevel policy‐making environments. Many studies only address one part of this problem. Improving the supply of evidence helps reduce scientific and policy maker uncertainty. However, policy makers also combine their beliefs with limited evidence to reduce ambiguity by choosing one of several possible ways to understand and solve a problem. We use this insight to consider solutions designed to “close the evidence–policy gap.”     

Censors Get Smart: Evidence from Psiphon in Iran

Information controls are actions intended to deny, disrupt, monitor, or secure information for political ends. They can be implemented using a wide variety of technical and nontechnical means. Political contests over the control of information are heightened around important events, such as major anniversaries, armed conflicts, protests, and elections. In this paper, we offer a comparative case study of online censorship of the circumvention tool Psiphon during the Iranian elections in 2016 and 2013, drawing on unique access to analytics data from Psiphon. We find that the Iranian regime developed its censorship approach in two ways, deploying blocking that was more targeted and strategically timed in the more recent case. Evidence suggests that the regime relaxed censorship of Psiphon during the official campaign period for the 2016 election. The apparent objective of this new approach was to control access to information while minimizing the political consequences of doing so.     

Denationalization and the Very Idea of Democratic Constitutionalism: The Case of the European Community

Within the current debates about Euro‐constitutionalism, the conventional options are either to defend a vision of the European Union (EU) which separates global economic law from national sovereignty, and thus relies on the legitimizing powers of free markets, or to regard the legitimation problem (at least under current conditions) as beyond solution: This view argues that any further progress towards an ever closer Union would inevitably increase the legitimation deficit and that therefore the capacity for political action of the nation state should be protected or restored. This paper seeks to break the stranglehold of the, as is argued, false dichotomy (global markets vs. national democracy), and it argues that an extension of democracy beyond the nation state is possible.     

The politics of government reorganization in Western Europe

The reorganization of governments is crucial for parties to express their policy preferences once they reach office. Yet these activities are not confined to the direct aftermath of general elections or to wide-ranging structural reforms. Instead, governments reorganize and adjust their machinery of government all the time. This paper aims to assess these structural choices with a particular focus at the core of the state, comparing four Western European democracies (Germany, France, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) from 1980 to 2013. Our empirical analysis shows that stronger shifts in cabinets' ideological profiles in the short- and long-term as well as the units' proximity to political executives yield significant effects. In contrast, Conservative governments, commonly regarded as key promoters of reorganizing governments, are not significant for the likelihood of structural change. We discuss the effects of this politics of government reorganization for different research debates assessing the inner workings of governments.