In May 2013 the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (SFOPH) commissioned the Department of Political Science (IPZ) to elaborate the “Study of the Swiss Addiction Policy: Advocacy Coalitions in the Swiss Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Policy”. The main objective of the study is the elaboration of a systematic overview of the field of addiction policy (illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco and non-substance-related addictions). Therefore, the set of relevant actors, their policy beliefs as well as the political dynamics in the field of addiction policy will be analyzed in a systematic manner. For this purpose, the study is divided into three parts. First, the most relevant decision-making processes on the federal level in the last ten years will be the object of a qualitative analysis. Second, a survey with carefully chosen informants (experts) will give an overview of the actors in the Swiss addiction policy as well as their positions. Third, in order to shed light on the situation on the cantonal level, a standardized survey with all 26 cantonal delegates for addiction will be conducted.
The program „QuAKTIV. Nature-oriented, child-and youth-friendly quarters and settlement development in the canton of Aargau“ is developed and implemented under the direction of the FHNW School of Social Work together with the cantonal agencies in the canton of Aargau. The program aims at intensifying participatory, ecological and educational goals in the implementation of child- and youth-friendly planning projects and in the design of natural experience spaces. This will be achieved through the participative implementation of concrete projects in three pilot communities in the canton of Aargau. Existing methods and instruments will be adapted to the preexisting demands and, if required, new tools will be developed, tested and evaluated in these pilot communities. The acquired experiences serve as flagship projects (good practice) and will be made available to a broad professional public. Commissioned by the Mercator Foundation Switzerland, the Department of Political Science evaluates the democratic content of alternative participatory forms used in the three pilot communities. This evaluation addresses several aspects such as inclusion, democratic quality and socialization. For this purpose, the study analyses program documents and conducts semi-structured interviews with both participants and decision-makers in the communities. In this way, the study takes into account different experiences and opinions of alternative participatory forms in order to formulate relevant recommendations for decision-makers for similar use of alternative participatory forms in other communities or cantons.
This project analyzes policy responses, crisis politics, and distributive outcomes of national crisis management towards the global financial crisis and the euro crisis.
This Sinergia project addresses the questions of how policy evaluation in Switzerland is influenced by the Swiss political system, and how policy evaluation in turn influences the Swiss political system. This topic is of great theoretical significance for political science and public administration theory, because until now, research on the relationship between specific attributes of political systems and the practice and institutionalization of policy evaluation is missing. It is also of great practical relevance, because considerable resources are invested in evaluations each year, and we need to know how to best make use of this investment and how to avoid negative consequences. To link attributes of policy evaluation with policy, polity, and politics in a comprehensive approach is considered as an innovative and fruitful research track. The Swiss political system is ideal for studying this question: Firstly, it has a high degree of internal heterogeneity that allows for within-system comparisons. Secondly, two attributes of the Swiss political system are of special relevance for policy evaluation, namely: federalism and direct democracy. Some scholars claim that federalism increases the demand for evaluations, others argue the opposite, and the same is true for direct democracy. A similar lack of consensus exists with respect to the influence of policy evaluation on the Swiss political system. In addition, a systematic analysis of interdependencies between attributes of the Swiss political system and evaluation is lacking, especially at the subnational level. Therefore, the Sinergia project analyzes these relationships through comparisons at the cantonal level, and by using longitudinal and cross-sectional, inter-policy comparison. In detail, the following four subprojects constitute the Sinergia project: Subproject 1, led by A. Balthasar (University of Lucerne) and F. Varone (University of Geneva), asks about the relevance of policy sector and administrative unit attributes for policy evaluation by comparing twenty cases (1990-2011) in education, health, energy and public transport policy from four cantons and the Federation. Subproject 2, directed by K. Horber-Papazian and L. Mader (both IDHEAP Lausanne), analyzes the reasons for and the consequences of evaluation clauses in federal and cantonal laws. The study consists of a comprehensive survey and analysis of current (2011) obligations to conduct evaluations in all federal and cantonal laws. Subproject 3, managed by F. Sager and V. Friedrich (both University of Berne), concentrates on direct democracy and asks about the use of evaluations in direct democratic campaigns. The focus is on education and health policy at the cantonal and federal level. An extensive survey of all votes at cantonal and federal levels from 1990 to 2011 will be conducted, as well as eight case studies of selected campaigns. Subproject 4, run by T. Widmer and K. Frey (both University of Zurich), analyses the relationships between policy evaluation and parliaments at the cantonal and federal levels by conducting a survey among the about 3’000 members of parliament at both levels. Multi-level data analyses will be conducted, as will a comparison of 27 cases (3 policies from 3 policy sectors (education, health and energy policy) in 3 cantons).
Collaboration with Florian Grotz of the Leuphana University, Lüneburg. Due to the ongoing processes of globalization and supranational integration, traditional core elements of democratic suffrage have been “on the move” in the recent past. More specifically, many countries have enfranchised resident aliens and/or non-resident citizens, thus abolishing citizenship and residency as necessary requirements for the individual right to vote in democratic nation-states. Although this kind of suffrage extension has been a transnational tendency since quite a while there is considerable variation in its timing, scope and levels of application (national – regional – local). Furthermore, the political consequences of resident aliens and non-resident citizens participating in general elections obviously differ from country to country. The project aims at investigating empirically the cross-country differences and estimating the impact of different provisions for immigrants' and expatriates' voting rights on the quality of representation.
Over the last decade, non-core multilateral aid (especially trust funds, but also global programs, and joint programming) has increasingly replaced core contributions to multilateral aid institutions (MAIs). Unlike traditional multilateral assistance, this type of aid refers to bilateral donors’ voluntary contributions to specific activities, and makes use of separate funding channels and governance structures outside the MAIs’ executive boards, despite being managed by MAIs. Non-core contributions have recently enjoyed considerable popularity among bilateral donors since they allow them to earmark their contributions for specific development objectives. This in turn allows them to gain more influence over the allocation of multilateral aid, more visibility for their individual contributions, and higher financial flexibility since voluntary contributions are not subject to long-term international contracts. Furthermore, earmarking may help establish clearer objectives and a more transparent principal-agent relationship. However, non-core multilateral aid may pose severe risks for aid effectiveness. It may replace the core contributions to MAIs, complicate the budgeting of these organizations, inflate administrative costs and governance structures due to additional reporting, relinquish the expert knowledge of experienced MAI staff through newly created sub-structures, and attract their attention to shopping for funds. Moreover, donors may create funds to which little additional resources are channeled, causing sunk costs and organizational duplication with existing MAIs. From the perspective of recipients, non-core multilateral aid undermines developing country ownership and tends to make aid flows less predictable. If non-core multilateral aid is not in the interest of major international actors, notably the MAIs themselves, then why has there been such a strong increase over the last decade? Clarifying the concept of non-core multilateral aid and exploring recent trends, the project seeks to better understand the motivations of the key actors from MAIs and bilateral donor ministries, as well as to assess the consequences of non-core funding with respect to aid effectiveness. Interviews within international organizations will feed into comparative case studies across MAIs and provide a basis for the development of a game-theoretic public choice model that can finally be tested econometrically. The project thereby contributes to the existing literature on aid allocation and aid effectiveness, and notably to its recent strand on aid fragmentation. To the best of our knowledge, it will be the first systematic and comprehensive analysis of the new multilateral financing mechanisms. The results should help raise awareness among both international organizations and bilateral donors, of the associated problems and opportunities, and help MAIs to take a strategic approach towards these contributions. In light of the large variety of approaches to the topic suggested by a widely interdisciplinary literature, our project team consists of researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines including political science, economics, law, political philosophy, and anthropology. This ensures due consideration of legal and institutional aspects as well as questions of legitimacy and responsibility, along with the central political and economic analysis. The project team also covers the different institutional and sectoral specializations as required for a comprehensive analysis of such a wide-ranging, but new and largely unexplored phenomenon.
The „Netzwerk Psychische Gesundheit Schweiz“ [„Mental Health Network Switzerland“] has started its activities in December 2011 and consists of organizations from the mental health domain in Switzerland. The Network defines itself as a multisectoral, nationwide initiative for the promotion of mental health and the reduction of psychological diseases in Switzerland. The Network itself does not implement measures. However, it promotes knowledge transfer and exchanges of information and experiences among important actors in the field of mental health in Switzerland. Commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (SFOPH), the Department of Political Science evaluates the Mental Health Network Switzerland. This evaluation is formative, and contributes to the installation and further development of the Network. It not only assesses the underlying conception and development of the Network, but also its chances for success under the given restrictions. The recommendations of this evaluation will give support for upcoming decisions to take concerning the further development of the Network.
In the international relations literature, a sustained debate exists on whether and how intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) influence national state behaviour. Empirically, while much research has been done on how the European institutions affect member states’ interests and behaviour, research that looks at other IGOs in this context is still very limited, and focuses specifically on analysing whether membership to an organization affects state behaviour. In this research project, we will draw from rationalist and constructivist theories and negotiation research to consider the role of a particular feature of institutional design on future bargaining behaviour within an IGO. We posit that the way in which IGOs are designed affects state interests and behaviour, even if this was not intended in the first place. We will show that such has been the case within the negotiations under the United Nations Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) with the institutionalization of the differentiation of member states into ‘Annex I’ and ‘non-Annex I’ countries as a way of establishing different levels of commitment for different countries. While such differentiation allowed reaching an agreement and starting cooperation in the first place, evidence of the negotiation process under the UNFCCC suggests that by building these two rigid groups of countries (the ‘constructed peer groups’), an unnecessarily deep divide between them has been generated, which has politicized discussion in future negotiation rounds. The project expands on initial theoretical discussions and empirical findings that are summarized in a working paper by the applicants, and seeks to answer four main research questions: 1. What are the reasons that led to the creation of institutionalized country groupings with differential treatment in IGOs, and what are the characteristics of such groupings? Under what circumstances is it possible to agree to objective criteria for defining them? 2. Does the existence of institutionalized country groups affect IGO member states’ negotiation behaviour over time, leading to institutional path dependence? 3. Can rationalist arguments, such as the creation of new incentives for countries within these groups, explain such changed behaviour? 4. Or can constructivist theories of socialization and shared norms explain it? To answer these questions, the project will use a combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques. After a conceptual phase in which our ‘constructed peer group’ hypothesis is further substantiated with the existing literature, an initial qualitative comparative study across different IGOs will be used to investigate what factors in the negotiation process led to the creation of institutionalized country groups with differential treatment in different IGOs in the first place, and what factors determine the design characteristics of such country groups. Analysis of negotiation reports, secondary literature and interviews with negotiators and experts will inform the research. An econometric analysis based on traditional regression techniques and propensity score matching will elucidate, for the case of the climate change negotiations, whether the initial classification of countries into Annex I and non-Annex I has affected the future negotiation dynamics and what causal mechanisms have led to such effects, based on an own-coded dataset of oral statements during the negotiations under the UNFCCC throughout its lifetime. Qualitative case studies of the negotiation trajectories of individual member countries to the UNFCCC will be used to more deeply investigate the causes of the existing divide between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. The project is intended to result in the publication of a book, and in the preparation of a publicly available dataset of oral statements in the UNFCCC negotiations.
1. BACKGROUND The current constitution of BiH is based on Annex IV of the Dayton Peace Agreement and does not provide an adequate framework for a prosperous future of BiH. Switzerland is strongly supporting the process of constitutional reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 2005. The support was implemented in the frame of programs called “Platform Bosnia and Herzegovina: Contribution to Constitutional Changes”. Till now, three phases were implemented. The previous phases were implemented with the vision of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina aware of the need for and supportive to the process of constitutional reform as one of the principal conditions for the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Programs were tailored to achieve sensibility over constitutional issues of wider public, especially local communities and to support local actors in the process of constitutional changes. The previous phase (2008-2010) included some new and crucial features that should have enhanced the overall impact and increased ownership over the constitutional development process: collaboration with upper level of government/institutions, strengthening of institutional capacities (state building), demand driven activities and usage of regional/inter-municipal level through already existing structure-Entities Associations of Municipalities and Cities. Previous phases were able to build trust between BiH and Switzerland which resulted in the wish for continuation of the Swiss support. The fourth phase will build upon results and the experiences of past projects. Goals of the previous phases will be basically kept, but additional objectives regarding capacity building of the different institutional structures and democratization have been added, as Bosnia’s post-conflict ethnic politics will not disappear, even when there is agreement on constitutional reform. 2. OBJECTIVES (project component: Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau) A) Enhancing sustainable democratization and bridging the divide between the youth in BiH along ethnic and entity lines through capacity building of prospective postgraduate students in the domains of democratization, human rights and constitutional reform. The emphasis is on the development of potential future decision makers’ capability to critically analyse ways of designing mutual comprehension in a multicultural society. • Organization of a winter school in BiH and a summer school in Switzerland for 30-50 university students with particular emphasis on the institutional design for divided societies: electoral system, federalism, direct democracy, quotas and representation. Deepened skills will be offered both through theoretical background, empirical examples of other countries and practical experience provided by decision makers and opinion leaders. • Networking between BiH universities, both between Swiss and BiH universities and institutions (like ZDA, University of Zürich, NADEL) and possibility of exchange among students (both from within BiH and from Switzerland and other countries) strengthened. B) Capacity building of BiH parliamentary members and other politically relevant stakeholders is built up in order to help to overcome some of egregious flaws in BiH constitution. By addressing the constitution’s shortcomings, power-sharing and consensus at different levels (municipal, cantonal, entity) should be facilitated and institutional processes and decision making strengthened. This should also provide a basis for building a political consensus, culture of dialogue and exchange of experiences between Swiss, international and BiH experts. • Specific and joint workshops/expertise for BiH MPs are organized in order to build a base for strategic development in the context of constitutional changes.
In 2009, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (SFOPH) commissioned a research consortium composed of four institutions – Sucht Schweiz, Institut für Sucht- und Gesundheitsforschung ISGF, Institut universitaire de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Lausanne IUMSP, Institut für Begleit- und Sozialforschung IBSF – with establishing the Addiction Monitoring System in Switzerland (AMIS). AMIS aims at the regular provision of representative population data on the consumption of psychoactive substances (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs and pharmaceuticals) and on the individual and social consequences of such consumption. For that purpose, AMIS both draws on already existing data and collects new data. Given that the contract with the research consortium expires in 2014, the SFOPH has commissioned the Department of Political Science of the University of Zurich with an evaluation of AMIS, the results of which are to serve as a basis for negotiating a follow-up contract with the consortium.