DISINTEGRATION is a research project run by Stefanie Walter (University of Zurich) and funded by an ERC Consolidator Grant. It examines the mass politics of disintegration and pays particular attention how other voters, elites and governments in other countries respond to voter-endorsed challenges to international institutions. PUBLIC OPINION (WP 1): When and how does one country’s mass-based disintegration experience encourage or deter demands for disintegration in other countries? DOMESTIC DISCOURSE (WP 2): How are the contagion effects of mass-based disintegration transmitted through domestic elites and domestic discourse? DISINTEGRATION NEGOTIATIONS (WP 3): How do an international institution’s other member states respond to one member state’s mass-based disintegration bid? THEORIZING DISINTEGRATION (WP 4): Building a theory of mass-based disintegration. DISINTEGRATION is a research project funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program grant agreement No 817582 (ERC Consolidator Grant DISINTEGRATION, 2019-2024) and the University of Zurich.
In the case of heterogeneous and politically divided societies, the literature on democratic consolidation often recommends relying on rules and practices that disperse political power (e.g. Lijphart, 1991; Linder, 1994; Schneider, 2008). However, the relationship between democratic consolidation and power dispersion is complex, because actors critical of democratization may use democratic rules and processes to halt democratic consolidation. Other scholars have therefore recommended the concentration of power to create stable governments and exclude non-democratic groups from power.We examine the complex relationship between democratic consolidation, power dispersion, and the use of (non-)democratic rules and processes to further or stop this consolidation process in Switzerland from 1848 onward. After the short civil war of 1847 and subsequent creation of the federal state in 1848, Switzerland's young democracy was confronted with several societal groups skeptical of the federal state and democracy. We examine how the societal groups controlling political power in the early decades used non-democratic means to limit the power of societal groups critical of democratization. At the same time, we explore how these societal groups critical of democracy used instruments provided by the democratic political system in order to limit democratic consolidation or the development of state capacity. Ultimately, we ask whether and how (non-)democratic rules and processes were used to further or stop the democratic consolidation in Switzerland.We focus on three distinct aspects of democratic consolidation and power dispersion at cantonal and national level: suffrage restrictions to exclude certain societal groups, the adaptation of electoral district boundaries for political reasons (redistricting), and direct democratic rules and practices. While restrictions on suffrage and the use of redistricting to achieve partisan advantages (often called 'gerrymandering') are prominent examples of electoral malpractice (Schedler, 2002; Birch, 2011), the role of direct democracy is rather specific to Switzerland, but certainly no less relevant. For each aspect, we ask how these rules and practices were used to further or halt democratic consolidation, how the rules were adapted to improve democratic processes, and what kind of effects these democratization reforms had on political outcomes.Methodologically, we lay particular emphasis on the micro-foundations of historical processes. Following recent developments in democratization research (most notably Ziblatt, 2009), we look at subnational variation, both at cantonal and district level, as well as direct democratic procedures and roll-call votes in parliament. Typically based on archival research, these new methodological approaches to democratization research combine the comparative strengths of historical research regarding primary sources and context-sensitivity with the powerful methodological tool-kit of the social sciences. It is not least with regard to these methodological approaches that Switzerland offers excellent conditions for research on democratic consolidation, as historical documents are often available, direct democratic procedures and cantonal variation allow for subnational analysis, and roll-call votes in parliament were quite common.The findings of our research will contribute to a better understanding of how young democracies consolidate and institutional choices are shaped by political and social conflicts. In addition, we examine the strategies used by young democracies to deal with societal groups critical of democracy, which is of particular importance given the current rise of anti-system parties. As a secondary contribution of this research project, we aim to make the collected data publicly available to further research on democratic consolidation and political reform in Switzerland.
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.
(German summary below) Summary Prosperous cities in Europe have difficulties in offering sufficient affordable housing, they exhibit hot spots with socially deprived population groups, provided these groups have not already been displaced into the agglomeration. And yet city administrations do have a number of instruments at their disposal for countering (but also for reinforcing) these trends. As principal investigator of an international SNSF project, I investigate the use of such instruments in three cities: Birmingham, Lyon, and Zurich. Urban zoning and building plans determine the permitted uses and plot ratios for each lot of the city, thereby defining the incentives and conditions for private developers. These plans also have an impact on possible housing policies, the creation of public parks or community centres. Departing from the urban planning concept of the "Just City" we explore the urban developments with regard to social hot spots, displacement, affordable housing and the set up of public amenities - from the 1990s to present. By focusing on the facilitating actors, processes and democratic institutions, the issue of the "Just City" is firstly investigated from a political science perspective. We complement previous work on leadership, democratic accountability and participatory planning with an integral view for three cities featuring different national planning systems and local government systems. Results will be discussed with political decision makers, administrative agencies and political activists. --- Zusammenfassung Prosperierende Städte Europas bekunden zunehmend Mühe, ausreichend bezahlbaren Wohnraum zu bieten, und sie verfügen oft über Brennpunkte mit sozial schwachen und schlecht integrierten Bevölkerungsgruppen, sofern diese nicht in die Agglomeration verdrängt werden. Dabei stehen den städtischen Behörden unterschiedliche Instrumente zur Verfügung, um diesen Entwicklungen entgegenzuwirken - oder aber zu verstärken. Der Einsatz solcher Instrumente sollen für drei Städte untersucht werden: Birmingham, Lyon und Zürich. Mit städtischen Bau- und Zonenplänen werden für jede Parzelle die vorgesehenen Nutzungsarten und Ausnutzungsziffern festgelegt, womit Anreize und Bedingungen für die Bautätigkeit von Privaten gesetzt werden. Damit verbunden sind aber auch die Möglichkeiten für die städtische Wohnbauförderung, für das Anlegen von Parks oder für den Bau von Schulen und öffentlichen Begegnungszentren. Ausgehend vom stadtplanerischen Konzept der „Gerechten Stadt“ untersuchen wir die städtischen Entwicklungen bezüglich sozialen Brennpunkten, Verdrängung, bezahlbarem Wohnangebot und Ausrichtung öffentlicher Einrichtungen – und zwar seit den 1990er Jahren bis heute. Durch den Fokus auf die ermöglichenden Akteure, Prozesse und demokratischen Institutionen wird das Thema der "Gerechten Stadt" erstmals aus politikwissenschaftlicher Perspektive untersucht. Bisherige Arbeiten zur Rolle von "Leadership", demokratischer Kontrolle und partizipativen Planungsverfahren werden ergänzt um eine integrierte Betrachtung am Beispiel von drei Städten mit unterschiedlichen nationalen Planungssystemen und lokalen demokratischen Institutionen. Die Ergebnisse der Studie sollen abschliessend mit politischen Entscheidungsträgern, Verwaltungsstellen und politische Aktivisten diskutiert werden.