Another Weber: state,associations and domination in international relations

While there has arguably been a partial reception of Weber in international relations (IR), we argue here that his ideas have either been misunderstood or neglected. In order to highlight the most valuable Weberian insights, we focus on two topics of crucial importance to IR. First, in our view, Weber's crucial contribution to the study of states is not his alleged emphasis on the monopoly of violence but his concern with the problem of legitimacy, which is the key to understanding why individuals actually orient an action according to their beliefs in the idea of a state. Second, Weber conducted seminal historical investigations on religion, the rationalization of economic ethics, and organizations that show that the diffusion of isomorphism has little to do with supposedly uninterested and persuasive scientific and professional associations. Instead, more attention should be paid to rational domination and less to reified concepts such as John Meyer's ‘rationalized otherhood’. These arguments are also examined empirically.     

Flexible Adjustment and Political Stability: The Terms of the Debate

Flexibility is a prominent catchword in recent economic and political debate. The need for increased flexibility in various areas of society is generally accepted. The article presents and criticizes the terms of this debate. As part of the general neoliberal trend flexibility is often perceived as a purely desirable quality. Less state, less unions and flexibilization by means of greater reliance upon markets are the policies that are proposed to overcome the crisis of the Western industrialized countries. However, flexible adaptation requires a foundation of stable institutions and behaviour patterns. Japan today represents one successful combination of flexibility and stability. Scandinavia - and other small European countries - have been attributed other successful combinations. Here, political stability seems to arise from a big state and an extended corporatist system and, according to Katzenstein, this does not contradict, but rather reinforces, the capacity for economic flexibility. Recent developmental trends, however, challenge this interpretation. The recent structural changes have been considered part of a general transition from Fordism to post-Fordism. The international race to modernize or to implement post-Fordism might imply a new 'match' of techno-economic structures and sociopolitical institutions - also in the Scandinavian countries.     

The great financial crisis and the end of normal

In his book The End of Normal, James K. Galbraith turned to the causes of the Great Financial Crisis beginning in 2007. The central question was if the (supposed) pre-crisis normality of high growth rates could be reestablished – which Galbraith, from the perspective of a “biophysical analytical framework” and with view to the structural problems of high energy prices, geopolitical instability, technological change and the faulty design of the financial system, doubted. In the present paper, Galbraith reconsiders his central theses and explains why he holds on to them in spite of recent economic recovery and other developments like falling oil prices, and what, from his point of view, speaks against a return to a “new normal.” In addition, he discusses what political implications follow from his diagnosis. Klaus Dörre introduces Galbraith’s approach and underlines its relevance for the thematic context of capitalism, growth and democracy. For Dörre, Galbraith shows that “post-growth capitalisms” have, at least in the societies of the Global North, long become a reality – which is why it makes little sense to reserve the concept of “post-growth society” for utopic visions of the future, yet all the more to engage with Galbraith’s call for policies suited to an economy of slow growth.     

Zur Kritikbedürftigkeit von Werner Patzelts Maßstäben der Kritik an Volksvertretern und Volk

Zusammenfassung Der Parlamentsforscher Werner J. Patzelt hat in der ersten H?lfte der 1990er Jahre sowohl regional begrenzte als auch überregional angelegte Repr?sentativbefragungen durchgeführt, in denen deutsche L?nder-, Bundes- und Europa-Parlamentarier Innen nach ihren Einstellungen zum Parlamentsbetrieb befragt wurden. Mit entsprechenden Fragerastern ermittelte er auch die komplement?ren Einstellungsmuster eines deutschen Bev?lkerungsquerschnitts (1995). Die wichtigsten Befragungsergebnisse, verbunden mit Patzelts Bewertungen, k?nnen in drei zentralen Aufs?tzen überprüft werden. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der Interpretation des vorgelegten Datenmaterials müssen in einem ersten Abschnitt die von Patzelt zusammengefassten Merkmale eines „neu-dualistischen“ parlamentarischen Systems skizziert werden. Dabei zeigt sich, dass der Autor seinem Anspruch, die bundesrepublikanischen Verh?ltnisse „realit?tsbezogen“ darzustellen und zu bewerten, nicht gerecht wird. Dies gilt im Besonderen für Patzelts funktionslogisch-rationalistische, idealtypische Version des „neuen Dualismus“, die vom Autor als Realtyp missverstanden wird (1.). Indem der Autor mit einem Realtyp arbeitet, der keiner ist, so l?sst sich dann im zweiten und dritten Abschnitt argumentieren, sind seine Urteile der Erfahrungswelt der Volksvertreter genauso wenig angemessen (2.) wie der des Volkes (3.).      

Zeppernick/Habel: Das Sächsische Wasserrecht

Ohne Zusammenfassung