Grenzsetzende Macht

Using a historical and comparative perspective, the present article argues that the politically most effective and strategically most enduring boundaries of modernity were not those between nation-states, but rather those whose orienting and identity building function were based on the maintenance of a power imbalance essentializing cultural, religious or economic differences. The main argument is that the historically unique power of definition, which has conferred validity to the different versions of the West/Rest or North/South explanatory models up to this day, can be traced back to two elements: on the one hand, to the constitutive relationship between Western notions of cultural difference and the global Western power (“Occidentalism”), on the other hand, to the universalizing perspective which in this power context was declared as the only valid scientific representation of space (“hubris of the zero point”). The historical and current impact of this discursive strategy for constructing essentialized spaces are shown using the examples of Latin America and Eastern Europe as typical products of asymmetric boundaries.     

Die Politik wirtschaftlichen Wachstums in autoritären Staaten

The article analyses the widely debated impact of democracy on economic growth. It is argued that an increase of political participation causes a shift in the support-seeking strategies of opportunistic governments. Pure autocrats rationally ensure political support by providing rents to a small group of supporters. With growing political participation, however, public goods become a more efficient political instrument. While rents are assumed to be economically neutral, public goods have an positive impact on economic performance. Hence, growing participation in autocracies is related to higher growth rates of per capita income. This hypotheses is supported by the data.     

Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom

Purpose. Numerous wrongful convictions have brought into question the ability of judges and juries to accurately evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including defendants. Dangerous decisions theory (DDT) offers a theoretical framework to build our understanding of the decision‐making process that can culminate in such injustices. Arguments. According to DDT, the reading of a defendant's face and emotional expressions play a major role in initiating a series of ‘dangerous’ decisions concerning his/her credibility. Specifically, potent judgments of trustworthiness occur rapidly upon seeing a defendant's face, subjectively experienced as intuition. Originally evolved to reduce the danger to the observer, the initial judgment – which may be unreliable – will be enduring and have a powerful influence on the interpretation and assimilation of incoming evidence concerning the defendant. Ensuing inferences will be irrational, but rationalized by the decision maker through his/her subjective schemas about trustworthiness and heuristics for identifying deceptive behaviour. Facilitated by a high level of motivation, a non‐critical, tunnel vision assimilation of potentially disconfirming or ambiguous target information can culminate in a mistaken evaluation of guilt or innocence. Conclusions. Empirically based education and responsible expert testimony could serve to reduce such biases and improve legal decision‐making.     

Vom strategischen Nutzen des Wissens für die Politikberatung

In recent years, the field of political consulting and policy advice has gained growing attention and, thus, has been subject of important debates regarding its key concepts and theoretical foundations. This paper sets out to defend the authors' original thesis which has been challenged in the course of these debates. We argue that, along with classical oneway modes of consultation, a new way of interaction between political decision makers and consultants has emerged. The knowledge deriving from these cooperative discourses is not merely an external source for the preparation and legitimation of political decisions. It is integral part of the policy process and may unfold its potential as long as it meets the standards of epistemic and political robustness.     

Governance-Theorien und Governance-Probleme: Diesseits und jenseits des Steuerungsparadigmas

In recent years, the governance perspective has found a remarkable resonance in political science. Its development has focussed on institutional forms of governing in post-hierarchical contexts. Its popularity has been fuelled by the promise to provide for a practically relevant, design-friendly integration of different disciplines, approaches, and theories. The predominant view of governance is still strongly committed to the idea of political “steering”. It is doubtful, however, that in a post-hierarchical context problems of governing are adequately described as problems of “steering” and its improvement. It is thus argued that we should understand governance in ways which can not be reduced simply to steering. Three such alternatives are presented. Only a pluralistic understanding of governance can help us understand what the practical problems governance research promises to elucidate are actually about.     

Aid and state-building,Part II: Afghanistan and Iraq

Part I of this article found that, in South Korea and Taiwan, institutional legacy and continuity as well as the politics of aid did matter for post-war state-building. The inheritance and continuity of Weberian states and the receipt of aid either as budget support or increasingly aligned with local priorities helped to foster state-building. Part II of the study in this article explores a different dynamic of post-war aid to Afghanistan and Iraq which had a legacy of neopatrimonial and weak states. It argues that under more adverse initial conditions – for a neopatrimonial state – the role of aid regime and state-building strategies become even more important. Under these conditions, aid and state-building strategies may undermine state-building if they induce discontinuity in the existing state capacity and create parallel institutions to those of the state. Depending on the policies, state weakness may be reinforced if leaders are preoccupied with the politics of patronage.