I work on the transformation of Social Democracy in several complementary contexts: In my own research, I study the transformation of the electoral potential of social democratic parties and how this transformation affects welfare politics. Jointly with Tarik Abou-Chadi (UZH), Markus Wagner (Uni Vienna), Reto Mitteregger (UZH) and Nadja Mosimann (UZH), I study the determinants of electoral preferences for different programmatic profiles of Social Democratic parties via different types of observational and experimental survey designs. Jointly with Herbert Kitschelt, I co-direct the project “Beyond Social Democracy: Transformation of the Left in Emerging Knowledge Societies”, whose output is a book (edited volume) on the topic and a wide range of exchanges with different European Social Democratic Parties and organizations close to them. Jointly with Tarik Abou-Chadi, Reto Bürgisser, Matthias Enggist, Reto Mitteregger, Nadja Mosimann and Delia Zollinger, I am writing a book (in Geman, geared to a broader audience) on the electorate and strategic perspectives of the Swiss Social Democratic Party („Wählerschaft und Perspektiven der Sozialdemokratie in der Schweiz“, forthcoming with NZZ Libro Verlag in 2022).
The attitudes of the population towards (public) regulation are the focus of the present study. It is a follow-up study to the 2016 analysis of the attitudes of the Swiss population to public regulation (Höglinger/Widmer 2016) and is again based on a population survey. The comparison with 2016 shows that certain attitudes have changed over the last four years, while many attitudes have remained stable. The overall picture remains multi-faceted: Swiss voters are often not for or against regulation per se, but differentiate between the various regulatory objectives and contexts.
Child protection and foster care: The impact of institutions, funding, and implementation How do federalistic differences manifest themselves in child protection? To which degree do they influence child protection and foster care policies? Which measures will be funded at which regional level? Is there a correlation between funding, the authority to decide, and responsibility? This project wishes to ensure a systematic analysis of cantonal child protection policies, their inherent financial dependencies, and the impact on child protection practice in 26 cantons over the course of time. To the present state of knowledge, no in-depth investigation of the economic ties resulting from these cantonal policies has been carried out. This project will bridge this research gap by analyzing the different organizational framework conditions as well as the various financing mechanisms applied between 1970 and today. The systematic analysis of the political and financial structures in the cantons over the course of time and the combination of economic and the political analyses will contribute to improving child protection with the means available.
The project is funded by the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, the academy of sciences of the state of Baden-Württemberg as part of the WIN-Kolleg program. The project aims to provide insights into how slanted news media coverage impacts public debates and, in turn, affects collective decision making. News may be subtly biased through specific word choices or framing, intentional omissions or misrepresentation of specific details. In the most extreme cases, fake news may present entirely fabricated facts to intentionally manipulate public opinion towards a given topic. A rich diversity of opinions is desirable but systematically biased information, if not recognized as such, can be problematic as a basis for decision making. Therefore, it is crucial to empower news readers in recognizing relative biases in coverage by providing timely identification of media bias that can be delivered together with the actual news coverage – for example, through a specifically designed news aggregator platform. This project connects a long tradition of social science research on media bias with state-of-the-art methodology from computer science. The first part of the project centers around achieving rapid automated assessment of news media bias from a more technical, computer science point of view. The second, social science part of the project then is concerned with systematically studying how information about (relative) bias in the news could then be disseminated to enable – rather than to hinder – consensus formation and, in turn, collective decision making.
Government regulation created carbon markets. How can one prevent the occurrence of market abuses in this context? Given that carbon market creators possess ample information able to assist with market monitoring, this project aims to investigate past carbon market abuses, to identify the gaps in oversight frameworks that led to those abuses, and to create new rules and principles for carbon market regulation effective on all levels. The research questions guiding this project are as follows: What principles and rules should guide an effective and feasible multi‐level carbon market regulatory oversight? What were the risks of market abuse in the past, how can they be detected, and what are the potential future risks? To what extent are existing market regulations and enforcement practices addressing the risks identified? How can cooperation be achieved for effective carbon market regulation and oversight at an international level? What are the requirements for a feasible and effective regulation for carbon markets at an international, national, and subnational level? In order to address the complexity of these issues the methodology employed combines several threads. In the first phase researchers will construct an organizational typology of the markets; in a second phase primary data are categorized based on document-based content analyses in conjunction with interview-based information; in the third phase the results of the first two phases are combined.
Die beabsichtigte Studie nimmt die neuen Entwicklungen in der internationalen Forschung zur Interaktion zunehmender residenzieller und schulischer Segregation in städtischen Kontexten auf (Boterman 2013; Maloutas und Ramos Lobato 2015; Bernelius und Vaattovaara 2016), entwickelt einen neuartigen Algorithmus zur Optimierung schulischer Einzugsgebiete und Schulkreise (für Wahlkreise vgl. Tam Cho und Liu 2016) und ergänzt mit der Untersuchung der institutionalisierten Strukturen und Praktiken der Schulzuweisung die bisherige Schweizer Forschung um eine politikwissenschaftliche Perspektive. Konkret soll untersucht werden, inwieweit diese Strukturen und Praktiken die Wirkungen der zunehmenden Wohnsegregation im Schulbereich entweder verstärken, oder aber diesen erfolgreich entgegenwirken. Die hier beantragte Pilotstudie zur Stadt Zürich soll in einem Folgeprojekt auf vier weitere grosse Schweizer Städte ausgeweitet werden, um Vergleiche zu ermöglichen und eine nationale Debatte anzustossen.
Cantonal action programmes (CAP) are a central instrument of Health Promotion Switzerland (HPS) to promote public health in Switzerland. From 2007 to 2016, these programmes aimed at promoting nutrition and movement among children and juveniles. In 2017, the framework conditions changed. Under the new framework, the programmes can now deal in addition with the issue of mental health and include the target group elderly people. This national evaluation evaluates the progress of implementation, the effects and the quality of the cantonal action programmes and the activities of HPS under the new framework. The evaluation allows obtaining findings on the implementation, goal attainment and quality management of the cantonal programmes and on the measures of HPS. The findings of the evaluation intend to support the implementation of the cantonal programmes. Further, the insights help HPS to enhance their steering of the CAP and the related quality management. In addition to these formative elements, the evaluation has also a summative stance. The evaluation of the performance of the activities of HPS concerning their own goals is summative and fosters the legitimation of the measures of HPS. The evaluation set-up is modular. In different modules, a mix of social science methods is applied. Desk research, document analysis, a survey, multiple interviews, secondary data analysis, a meta-evaluation and group discussions are carried out during the project phase from 2018-2021.
Representing a consultative body to the Federal Council, the Swiss Science and Innovation Council (SSIC) attends to questions regarding higher education, research and innovation in Switzerland. Its tasks include assisting in the preparation of the four-yearly messages on the promotion of education research and innovation (ERI), in which the Federal Council takes stock of the previous policy on the promotion of ERI and lays out future goals and measures to achieve these goals. In order to be able to consult the Federal Council in the preparation of the upcoming message on the promotion of ERI 2021-2024, the SSIC has commissioned an analysis of the previous messages on the promotion of ERI from 2008 to 2020. On the one hand, the analysis aims at providing a retrospective assessment of the messages on the promotion of ERI from 2008 to 2020. This analysis should determine goals, challenges and measures laid out in the previous messages, but also thematic continuities in the four-yearly messages. It should also cover the parliamentary proceedings on topics of the messages. On the other hand, the analysis deals with prospective questions. With respect to the upcoming message on the promotion of ERI, the analysis aims at identifying goals that the SSIC intends to endorse. The prospective analysis should also provide insights into the role of the messages as a proactively oriented instrument to steer and coordinate policy on the promotion of ERI in Switzerland.
The welfarepriorities-team consists of myself, Macarena Ares, Reto Bürgisser, Matthias Enggist, Michael Pinggera, and Fabienne Eisenring. Current project output is on the project website. WELFAREPRIORITIES is a project funded by the European Research Council (ERC) running from September 2017 to March 2023. The goal of the project is to rethink social policy conflict. In times of austerity, the politics of the welfare state involve tough choices and even trade-offs: whose risks should benefit from social solidarity in a context of shrinking resources? Should the welfare state prioritize the needs of the elderly or those of the young? Those of people in the workforce or outside of the workforce? Of natives or of immigrants? How countries answer these key questions depends on the welfare state priorities of citizens, political elites and economic elites. However, we know still very little about these priorities and their determinants, and we know even less about the mechanisms that foster support for social solidarity – i.e. support for inclusive social security beyond self-interest. This project wants to make use of recent methodological advances to investigate precisely these priorities and mechanisms. The project has two phases: the goal of the first phase is to identify the most salient distributive conflicts and welfare trade-offs in eight European countries via observational and experimental survey data in 8 West European countries (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, UK and Ireland). The second phase goes beyond conflict towards coalitions. It identifies the factors that foster support for social policies among those social groups who are unlikely to benefit directly from these policies themselves.
The Human Research Act (HRA) implemented in 2014 aims to protect the dignity, privacy and health of human beings involved in research. It is also designed to create favourable conditions for research involving human beings and to ensure the quality and transparency of research involving human beings. The focus of the evaluation is on the analysis of the implementation and the effect of the HRA taking all the relevant context factors into consideration and also including the identification of optimization potential. The modularly structured evaluation is carried out by cooperation between the Department of Political Science and KEK-CDC Consultants.