Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks
German Pension Politics and Privatization Discourse
(Sprache: Englisch)
Schriften des Zentrums für Sozialpolitik, Bremen
Wie funktionieren politische Debatten? Welchen Einfluss können Politiker und Interessengruppen über die Medien auf politische Prozesse nehmen? Philip Leifeld stellt die Diskursnetzwerkanalyse als...
Wie funktionieren politische Debatten? Welchen Einfluss können Politiker und Interessengruppen über die Medien auf politische Prozesse nehmen? Philip Leifeld stellt die Diskursnetzwerkanalyse als...
Leider schon ausverkauft
Buch (Kartoniert)
- Lastschrift, Kreditkarte, Paypal, Rechnung
- Kostenlose Rücksendung
Produktdetails
Produktinformationen zu „Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks “
Schriften des Zentrums für Sozialpolitik, Bremen
Wie funktionieren politische Debatten? Welchen Einfluss können Politiker und Interessengruppen über die Medien auf politische Prozesse nehmen? Philip Leifeld stellt die Diskursnetzwerkanalyse als Werkzeugkasten für die Analyse politischer Debatten vor und wendet die Methoden auf die deutsche Rentenpolitik der 1990er Jahre an. Schritt für Schritt zeichnet er die Entstehung und die Auflösung von inhaltlichen Koalitionen und Polarisierungen im politischen Diskurs nach und liefert so einen Erklärungsansatz für die "Riester-Reform", die einen radikalen Bruch mit der bis dahin verfolgten Politik darstellte.
Wie funktionieren politische Debatten? Welchen Einfluss können Politiker und Interessengruppen über die Medien auf politische Prozesse nehmen? Philip Leifeld stellt die Diskursnetzwerkanalyse als Werkzeugkasten für die Analyse politischer Debatten vor und wendet die Methoden auf die deutsche Rentenpolitik der 1990er Jahre an. Schritt für Schritt zeichnet er die Entstehung und die Auflösung von inhaltlichen Koalitionen und Polarisierungen im politischen Diskurs nach und liefert so einen Erklärungsansatz für die "Riester-Reform", die einen radikalen Bruch mit der bis dahin verfolgten Politik darstellte.
Klappentext zu „Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks “
Schriften des Zentrums für Sozialpolitik, BremenWie funktionieren politische Debatten? Welchen Einfluss können Politiker und Interessengruppen über die Medien auf politische Prozesse nehmen? Philip Leifeld stellt die Diskursnetzwerkanalyse als Werkzeugkasten für die Analyse politischer Debatten vor und wendet die Methoden auf die deutsche Rentenpolitik der 1990er Jahre an. Schritt für Schritt zeichnet er die Entstehung und die Auflösung von inhaltlichen Koalitionen und Polarisierungen im politischen Diskurs nach und liefert so einen Erklärungsansatz für die »Riester-Reform«, die einen radikalen Bruch mit der bis dahin verfolgten Politik darstellte.
Lese-Probe zu „Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks “
PrefaceThe European tradition of network analysis in political science differs some- what from its American counterpart. It was inspired by work in political sociology in the 1970s and 1980s. In the German and Swiss case, the same research design was employed by generations of researchers: identify the relevant organizations for a policy process, administer a network survey on information exchange or collaboration, influence attribution, venue participa- tion and other network relations, and identify the most central organizations as well as subgroups in order to reveal interest group influence on policy making. In many respects, this is valuable because numerous studies with nearly identical survey questions exist and are now amenable to inferential network analysis, a more recent methodological development (e. g., Leifeld and Schneider 2012; Ingold and Leifeld 2016). On the other hand, the inferences one can generate based on such an approach are limited because only a specific aspect of policy making is captured.
A parallel development in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s was concerned with the structure of policy subsystems and the role of policy beliefs and ideas for their structure. This implies that actors' policy beliefs and verbal interactions matter for a collective understanding of a complex policy problem, an idea that is akin to the notion of political discourse. Yet, more recently, these approaches were influenced by a more collaboration- and collective-action-centered perspective and lost much of their original focus on policy beliefs. In short, the literature on policy networks and the literature on belief systems and advocacy coalitions have been increasingly merged, and the study of advocacy coalitions is now often perceived as interchangeable with the study of policy networks.
This book is an attempt to overcome the methodological limitations of policy network analysis and operationalize the relational elements hidden in political
... mehr
debates. As it turns out, policy debates are complex and dynamic systems that need to be analyzed with scientific scrutiny. The time has come for a more rigorous approach to studying political discourse than the hermeneutic approaches that have been prevalent in the last decades. Only quantitative, relational methods, coupled with a (possibly qualitative) bridge from text to data, will permit a systematic study of policy debates.
After receiving my master's degree in Politics and Public Administration at the University of Konstanz in 2007, I had some experience with policy networks and related approaches. Before I started my doctoral studies at the Max Planck Institute, I co-edited a volume on policy networks (Schneider et al. 2009). For one of the chapters, Volker Schneider at the University of Konstanz advised me to look into ways that network analysis could be combined with the notion of discourse. This was a very vague idea that needed to be developed into something that other people could actually use in their own research. For the time being, I contributed ideas to a joint review chapter of existing work with my co-editors (0anning et al. 2009).
In the same year, I joined the PhD program of the Max Planck International Research Network on Aging (MaxNetAging) at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods. I soon developed an interest in the politics of demographic change and old-age provision, a topic that was both compatible with my newly developing interest in aging research and demography, and my background in the study of politics and policy networks. After talking to a variety of experts on demography and politics, I realized that organized interests were playing important roles in the politics of demography and old-age security, and that one of their main strategies was the deliberate use of the media and other venues to frame the pension debate in ways that supported
After receiving my master's degree in Politics and Public Administration at the University of Konstanz in 2007, I had some experience with policy networks and related approaches. Before I started my doctoral studies at the Max Planck Institute, I co-edited a volume on policy networks (Schneider et al. 2009). For one of the chapters, Volker Schneider at the University of Konstanz advised me to look into ways that network analysis could be combined with the notion of discourse. This was a very vague idea that needed to be developed into something that other people could actually use in their own research. For the time being, I contributed ideas to a joint review chapter of existing work with my co-editors (0anning et al. 2009).
In the same year, I joined the PhD program of the Max Planck International Research Network on Aging (MaxNetAging) at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods. I soon developed an interest in the politics of demographic change and old-age provision, a topic that was both compatible with my newly developing interest in aging research and demography, and my background in the study of politics and policy networks. After talking to a variety of experts on demography and politics, I realized that organized interests were playing important roles in the politics of demography and old-age security, and that one of their main strategies was the deliberate use of the media and other venues to frame the pension debate in ways that supported
... weniger
Inhaltsverzeichnis zu „Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks “
ContentsPrefacexi
I.The Theory and Methodology of Discourse Networks
1.Introduction3
2.Actor-centered approaches to discourse7
2.1.The Advocacy Coalition Framework9
2.2.Veto player analysis16
2.3.Punctuated Equilibrium Theory17
2.4.Policy paradigms and social learning21
2.5.Collective symbolic coping23
2.6.Civic arenas25
2.7.Multiple streams26
2.8.Argumentative discourse analysis and discourse coalitions .28
2.9.Epistemic communities30
2.10.Comparison of actor-centered approaches32
3.Content-oriented approaches to discourse37
3.1.Critical discourse analysis38
3.2.Category-based content analysis40
3.3.Frame mapping and the co-occurrence approach41
3.4.Clause- or grammar-based methods and knowledge graphs .43
3.5. Semantic networks45
3.6. Comparison of content-oriented approaches48
4.Hybrid approaches: linking actors and contents53
4.1.Decomposition analysis53
4.2.Political claims analysis54
4.3.Conclusions for a new discourse methodology57
4.4.Policy network analysis60
5.The methodology of discourse network analysis61
5.1.Coding procedure61
5.2.Affiliation networks62
5.3.Actor congruence networks64
5.4.Concept congruence networks69
5.5.Conflict networks71
5.6.Time window networks72
5.7.Attenuation networks78
5.8.Software implementation84
5.8.1.Encoding statements84
5.8.2.Network export facilities86
II. A Showcase: German Pension Politics, 1993-2001
6.German pension politics in the 1990s and the 2001 Riester reform91
6.1.Dimensions of pension systems and the status quo in the 1990s 93
6.1.1.Pay-as-you-go versus capital cover systems93
6.1.2.Public versus private pension systems97
6.1.3.Voluntary versus mandatory contributions98
6.1.4.Intra-generative redistribution versus equivalence .98
6.1.5.Risk balance 101
6.1.6.The pension formula102
6.2.Demographic change and the pension gap104
6.2.1.Demographic Transition as a complex long-term risk 105
6.2.2.Mortality106
6.2.3.Fertility107
6.2.4.Inconsistent solution
... mehr
concepts in the demographic debate110
6.2.5.Migration111
6.3.The 2001 Riester reform112
6.3.1.The 1999 Pension Reform Act112
6.3.2.Changes in the 2001 reform113
6.4.Positive analyses of the policy outcome117
7.Description of the dataset and univariate analysis . . . . .125
7.1. Coding procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....125
7.2. Media bias and validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....128
7.2.1.Record coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....129
7.2.2.Data coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....133
7.2.3.Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....134
7.3. Actors in the pension discourse . . . . . . . . . . .....134
7.3.1.Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....135
7.3.2.Social actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....136
7.3.3.Liberal actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....136
7.3.4.Financial sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.3.5.Young actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.3.6.Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.3.7.Other actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.4. Univariate analysis: concepts in the pension discourse..138
7.4.1.System change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....140
7.4.2.Retrenchment within the PAYG paradigm .....151
7.4.3.Strengthening the insurance principle . . . .....160
7.4.4.Increasing the number of contributors . . .....167
8.Empirical analysis of the German pension discourse in the 1990s183
8.1.Discourse activity over time184
8.2.Cross-sectional actor congruence, 1993-2001188
8.3.Longitudinal change199
8.4.Analysis of political parties209
8.5.Identification of ideologies214
8.6.Discussion and conclusion218
III. Models of Discursive Behavior
9.The contagious dimension of political discourse225
9.1.Attention and interaction in media discourse225
9.1.1.Discursive contagion in existing theories226
9.1.2.Two types of contagion227
9.1.3.Hypotheses228
9.2.Methods and data230
9.2.1.Operationalization231
9.2.2.Support versus resistance231
VIIIPOLICY DEBATES AS DYNAMIC NETWORKS
9.2.3.Exponential random graph models with dyadic de- pendence232
9.2.4.Estimation233
9.2.5.Dichotomization of edge weights234
9.2.6.Control variables234
9.2.7.Data236
9.2.8.Potential caveats237
9.3.Results and goodness of fit239
9.4.Discussion244
10.An agent-based model of political discourse249
10.1.A formal model of political discourse251
10.1.1.Defiand basic setup251
10.1.2.Exogenous ideology252
10.1.3.Endogenous ideology252
10.1.4.Concept popularity (bandwagoning)252
10.1.5.Actor similarity (coalition formation)253
10.1.6.Concept similarity253
10.1.7.Actor's history (self-consistency)254
10.1.8.Rare concepts (agenda-setting)255
10.1.9.Government coherence255
10.1.10.Normalization256
10.1.11.Utility functions257
10.2.Analysis258
10.2.1.Measurement258
10.2.2.Betweenness centralization258
10.2.3.Ideological polarization259
10.2.4.Number of components261
10.2.5.Proportion of concepts still alive261
10.2.6.Number of recent concept changes262
10.3.Results262
10.4.Discussion272
11.Conclusion275
11.1.Main achievements275
11.2.Potential weaknesses276
11.3.Outlook278
IV. Appendix
Laws and legislative decrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..283
List of actors in the dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..285
Software manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..291
1.Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..291
2.Tutorial for beginners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..292
3.In-depth description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..299
3.1.File format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..299
3.2.Dealing with articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..300
3.3.Recoding statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..302
3.4.Regular expressions highlighter . . . . . . . . . ..302
3.5.Within-actor contradictions . . . . . . . . . . . ..303
3.6.The bottom bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..303
3.7.Exporting time series statistics . . . . . . . . . ..305
3.8.Exporting network data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.rDNA. A Package to Control Discourse Network Analyzer from R307
4.1.Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..315
4.2.Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..315
4.3.Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..316
5.FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . ..317
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..321
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..349
6.2.5.Migration111
6.3.The 2001 Riester reform112
6.3.1.The 1999 Pension Reform Act112
6.3.2.Changes in the 2001 reform113
6.4.Positive analyses of the policy outcome117
7.Description of the dataset and univariate analysis . . . . .125
7.1. Coding procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....125
7.2. Media bias and validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....128
7.2.1.Record coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....129
7.2.2.Data coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....133
7.2.3.Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....134
7.3. Actors in the pension discourse . . . . . . . . . . .....134
7.3.1.Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....135
7.3.2.Social actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....136
7.3.3.Liberal actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....136
7.3.4.Financial sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.3.5.Young actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.3.6.Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.3.7.Other actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....137
7.4. Univariate analysis: concepts in the pension discourse..138
7.4.1.System change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....140
7.4.2.Retrenchment within the PAYG paradigm .....151
7.4.3.Strengthening the insurance principle . . . .....160
7.4.4.Increasing the number of contributors . . .....167
8.Empirical analysis of the German pension discourse in the 1990s183
8.1.Discourse activity over time184
8.2.Cross-sectional actor congruence, 1993-2001188
8.3.Longitudinal change199
8.4.Analysis of political parties209
8.5.Identification of ideologies214
8.6.Discussion and conclusion218
III. Models of Discursive Behavior
9.The contagious dimension of political discourse225
9.1.Attention and interaction in media discourse225
9.1.1.Discursive contagion in existing theories226
9.1.2.Two types of contagion227
9.1.3.Hypotheses228
9.2.Methods and data230
9.2.1.Operationalization231
9.2.2.Support versus resistance231
VIIIPOLICY DEBATES AS DYNAMIC NETWORKS
9.2.3.Exponential random graph models with dyadic de- pendence232
9.2.4.Estimation233
9.2.5.Dichotomization of edge weights234
9.2.6.Control variables234
9.2.7.Data236
9.2.8.Potential caveats237
9.3.Results and goodness of fit239
9.4.Discussion244
10.An agent-based model of political discourse249
10.1.A formal model of political discourse251
10.1.1.Defiand basic setup251
10.1.2.Exogenous ideology252
10.1.3.Endogenous ideology252
10.1.4.Concept popularity (bandwagoning)252
10.1.5.Actor similarity (coalition formation)253
10.1.6.Concept similarity253
10.1.7.Actor's history (self-consistency)254
10.1.8.Rare concepts (agenda-setting)255
10.1.9.Government coherence255
10.1.10.Normalization256
10.1.11.Utility functions257
10.2.Analysis258
10.2.1.Measurement258
10.2.2.Betweenness centralization258
10.2.3.Ideological polarization259
10.2.4.Number of components261
10.2.5.Proportion of concepts still alive261
10.2.6.Number of recent concept changes262
10.3.Results262
10.4.Discussion272
11.Conclusion275
11.1.Main achievements275
11.2.Potential weaknesses276
11.3.Outlook278
IV. Appendix
Laws and legislative decrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..283
List of actors in the dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..285
Software manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..291
1.Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..291
2.Tutorial for beginners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..292
3.In-depth description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..299
3.1.File format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..299
3.2.Dealing with articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..300
3.3.Recoding statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..302
3.4.Regular expressions highlighter . . . . . . . . . ..302
3.5.Within-actor contradictions . . . . . . . . . . . ..303
3.6.The bottom bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..303
3.7.Exporting time series statistics . . . . . . . . . ..305
3.8.Exporting network data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.rDNA. A Package to Control Discourse Network Analyzer from R307
4.1.Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..315
4.2.Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..315
4.3.Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..316
5.FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . ..317
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..321
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..349
... weniger
Autoren-Porträt von Philip Leifeld
Philip Leifeld ist Senior Researcher an der Eawag, dem Wasserforschungsinstitut des ETH-Bereichs, und an der Universität Bern am Institut für Politikwissenschaft.
Bibliographische Angaben
- Autor: Philip Leifeld
- 2016, 354 Seiten, mit Abbildungen, Maße: 14,4 x 21,3 cm, Kartoniert (TB), Englisch
- Verlag: CAMPUS VERLAG
- ISBN-10: 3593505703
- ISBN-13: 9783593505701
- Erscheinungsdatum: 05.04.2016
Sprache:
Englisch
Kommentar zu "Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks"
0 Gebrauchte Artikel zu „Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks“
| Zustand | Preis | Porto | Zahlung | Verkäufer | Rating |
|---|
Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar zu "Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks".
Kommentar verfassen