Advertisement

Staat und Rechtsstaat in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft

  • Peter Thiery
Chapter
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Staat und Rechtsstaat bilden – folgt man Fukuyama (2011; 2014a) – zusammen mit Demokratie die drei Säulen moderner politischer Ordnungen und politischer Entwicklung und werden zumeist auch als zentrale Konzepte der (vergleichenden) Politikwissenschaft bezeichnet (Lauth et al. 2014; Berg-Schlosser und Müller-Rommel 2003). Beide Konzepte sind gleichwohl in mehrerlei Hinsicht heftig umstritten, was sich auch auf die empirische Forschung auswirkt. Dies liegt sowohl an inhärenten konzeptionellen Problemen als auch an grundlegenden Wissenschaftsstandpunkten und überdies auch an forschungsstrategischen und -praktischen („paradigmatischen“) Perspektiven. Im Vergleich scheint gegenwärtig das Feld des Rechtsstaats in nächster Zukunft noch aussichtsreichere Forschungsperspektiven zu bieten. Denn obwohl Rechtsstaat bzw. rule of law – beide werden im Folgenden weitgehend synonym behandelt – keine wirklich neuen Gegenstände der Politikwissenschaft darstellen, hat sich eine systematischere Rechtsstaatsforschung erst in den letzten 20 Jahren entwickelt.

Schlüsselwörter

Staat Staatlichkeit Rechtsstaat Rule of law Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 

Literatur

  1. Almond, Gabriel A. 1988. The return to the state. American Political Science Review 82: 853–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, David, Jørgen Møller, Lasse Lykke Rørbeak, und Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2014a. State capacity and political regime stability. Democratization 21(7): 1305–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, David, Jørgen Møller, und Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2014b. The state-democracy nexus: Conceptual distinctions, theoretical perspectives, and comparative approaches. Democratization 21(7): 1203–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro, Robert. 2000. Rule of law, democracy, and economic performance. In 2000 Index of economic freedom, Hrsg. Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr., Kim R. Holmes und Melanie Kirkpatrick, 31–49. Washington/New York: Heritage Foundation und Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, Michael, Hans-Joachim Lauth, und Gert Pickel, Hrsg. 2001. Rechtsstaat und Demokratie. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Benz, Arthur. 2008. Der moderne Staat. Grundlagen der politologischen Analyse, 2. Aufl. München: Oldenbourg Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, und Ferdinand Müller-Rommel, Hrsg. 2003. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft: Ein einführendes Studienhandbuch. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  8. Bill Chavez, Rebecca. 2004. The rule of law in nascent democracies. Judicial politics in Argentina. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bratton, Michael, und Eric C.C. Chang. 2006. State building and democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Forwards, backwards, or together? Comparative Political Studies 39: 1059–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burchardt, Hans-Jürgen, und Stefan Peters, Hrsg. 2015. Der Staat in globaler Perspektive: Zur Renaissance der Entwicklungsstaaten. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  11. Carment, David, Stewart Prest, und Yiagadeesen Samy. 2010. Security, development, and the fragile state: Bridging the gap between theory and policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Carothers, Thomas, Hrsg. 2006. Promoting the rule of law abroad. in search of knowledge. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  13. Centeno, Miguel. 2002. Blood and debt: War and the nation-state in Latin America. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ciepley, David. 2000. Why the state was dropped in the first place: A prequel to Skocpol’s „bringing the state back in“. Critical Review 14(2–3): 157–213.Google Scholar
  15. Croissant, Aurel, und Peter Thiery. 2010. Dritte Gegenwelle, Erosion der Demokratie oder Persistenz der defekten Demokratien? Eine Analyse des Verlaufs demokratischer Transformation im ersten Jahrzehnt des 21. Jahrhunderts anhand von drei Erhebungswellen des BTI. In Transformation Index 2010. Auf dem Weg zur marktwirtschaftlichen Demokratie, Hrsg. Bertelsmann Stiftung, 212–232. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  16. Debiel, Tobias, und Andrea Gawrich, Hrsg. 2013. (Dys-)Functionalities of corruption: Comparative perspectives and methodological pluralism. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft (ZfVP)/Comparative Governance and Politics, volume 7, Supplement 1, Special Issue 3. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  17. Dunkerley, James, Hrsg. 2002. Studies in the formation of the nation-state in Latin America. London: Institute of Latin American Studies.Google Scholar
  18. Erdmann, Gero, und Ulf Engel. 2007. Neopatrimonialism reconsidered: Critical review and elaboration of an elusive concept. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 45: 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, Peter B. 1989. Predatory, developmental, and other apparatuses: A comparative political economy perspective on the Third World state. Sociological Forum 4(4): 561–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, Peter B. 1995. Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer und Theda Skocpol, Hrsg. 1985. Bringing the state back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, Peter B., und James E. Rauch. 1999. Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effect of ‚Weberian‘ state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review 64(5): 748–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fabra Mata, Javier, und Sebastian Ziaja. 2009. Users‘ guide on measuring fragility. Bonn/Oslo: GDI/UNDP.Google Scholar
  24. Fukuyama, Francis. 2005. ‚Stateness‘ first. Journal of Democracy 16(1): 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fukuyama, Francis. 2010. Transitions to the rule of law. Journal of Democracy 21(1): 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fukuyama, Francis. 2011. Origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  27. Fukuyama, Francis. 2013. Democracy and the quality of the state. Journal of Democracy 24(4): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fukuyama, Francis. 2014a. Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  29. Fukuyama, Francis. 2014b. States and democracy. Democratization 21(7): 1326–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician’s dilemma: Building state capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Grävingholt, Jörn, Sebastian Ziaja, und Merle Kreibaum. 2012. State fragility: Towards a multi-dimensional empirical typology, DIE Discussion Paper 3/2012. Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.Google Scholar
  32. Haggard, Stephan, Andrew MacIntyre, und Lydia Tiede. 2008. The rule of law and economic development. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall, Peter A., und David Soskice, Hrsg. 2001. Varieties of capitalism – The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hammergren, Linn A. 1998. The politics of justice and justice reform in Latin America. The Peruvian case in comparative perspective. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  35. Hanson, Jonathan K., und Rachel Sigman. 2013. Leviathan’s latent dimensions: Measuring state capacity for comparative political research. Syracuse University: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/johanson/papers/hanson_sigman13.pdf. Zugegriffen am 25.06.2015.
  36. Hay, Colin, und Michael Lister. 2006. Introduction: Theories of the state. In The state. Theories and issues, Hrsg. Colin Hay, Michael Lister, und David Marsh, 1–20. Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Hay, Colin, Michael Lister und David Marsh, Hrsg. 2006. The state. Theories and issues. Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Hayo, Bernd, und Stefan Voigt. 2005. Explaining de facto judicial independence. Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200507. Department of Economics, Philipps-Universität Marburg.Google Scholar
  39. Hendrix, Cullen S. 2010. Measuring state capacity. Theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research 47(3): 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoff, Karla, und Joseph Stiglitz. 2004. After the big bang? Obstacles to the emergence of rule of law in post-communist societies. American Economic Review 94: 753–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hui, Victoria Tin-bor. 2005. War and state formation in ancient China and early modern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kitschelt, Herbert, und Steven I. Wilkinson. 2007. Patrons or policies? Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kleinfeld, Rachel. 2006. Competing definitions of the rule of law. In Promoting the rule of law abroad in search of knowledge, Hrsg. Thomas Carothers, 31–73. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  44. Kohli, Atul. 2004. State-directed development: Political power and industrialization in the global periphery. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kurtz, Marcus J. 2013. Latin American state building in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lauth, Hans-Joachim, und Jenniver Sehring. 2009. Putting deficient Rechtsstaat on the research agenda: Reflections on diminished subtypes. Comparative Sociology 8: 165–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lauth, Hans-Joachim, Gert Pickel, und Susanne Pickel. 2014. Vergleich politischer Systeme. Paderborn: Schöningh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2000. Informal institutions and democracy. Democratization 7(4): 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2004a. Demokratie und Demokratiemessung. Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  50. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2004b. Formal and Informal Institutions: On structuring their mutual co-existence. Romanian Journal of Political Science 4(1): 66–88.Google Scholar
  51. Levi, Margaret. 2002. The state of the study of the state. In Political science: The state of the discipline, Hrsg. Ira Katznelson und Helen Milner, 33–55. New York: W. W. Norton and the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  52. Linz, Juan J., und Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mazzuca, Sebastian, und Gerardo Munck. 2014. State or democracy first? Alternative perspectives on the state-democracy nexus. Democratization 21(7): 1221–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Meyer, Thomas. 2011. Theorie der Sozialen Demokratie, 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trebilcock, Michael J., und Ronald J. Daniels. 2008. Rule of law reform and development: Charting the fragile path of progress. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Møller, Jørgen, und Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2012. Systematizing thin and thick conceptions of the rule of law. Justice System Journal 33(2): 136–153.Google Scholar
  57. Møller, Jørgen, und Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2011. Stateness first? Democratization 18(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moore, Barrington. 1968. Soziale Ursprünge von Diktatur und Demokratie. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  59. Nettl, J.P. 1968. The state as a conceptual variable. World Politics 20(4): 559–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Newton, Kenneth, und Jan W. van Deth. 2010. Foundations of comparative politics: Democracies of the modern world, 2. Aufl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nino, Carlos S. 1996. The constitution of deliberative democracy. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  62. North, Douglass, John Joseph Wallis, und Barry Weingast. 2009. Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. North, Douglass, John Joseph Wallis, Steven B. Webb, und Barry Weingast, Hrsg. 2012. In the shadow of violence: Politics, economics, and the problems of development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2004. The quality of democracy: Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy 15(4): 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2010. Democracy, agency and the state: Theory with comparative intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1998. Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy 9(3): 112–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Paine, Sarah C.M. 2014. Nation building, state building, and economic development: Case studies and comparisons. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Peters, B. Guy. 1988. Comparing public bureaucracies. Problems of theory and method. Tuscaloosa/London: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  69. Peters, B. Guy. 1996. The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  70. Pierson, Christopher. 1996. The modern state. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatcher and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Prillaman, William C. 2000. The judiciary and democratic decay in Latin America. Declining confidence in the rule of law. Westport/Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Rauch, James E., und Peter B. Evans. 1999. Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of „Weberian“ state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review 64: 748–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ríos-Figueroa, Julio, und Jeffrey K. Staton. 2008. Unpacking the rule of law. A review of judicial independence measures. IPSA Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series (Political Concepts No. 21). Mexico: International Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  75. Ríos-Figueroa, Julio. 2008. Judicial institutions and corruption control, CIDE – Documento de Trabajo 204. Mexico: Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.Google Scholar
  76. Ríos-Figueroa, Julio. 2012. Justice system institutions and corruption control: Evidence from Latin America. The Justice System Journal 33(2): 195–214.Google Scholar
  77. Rokkan, Stein. 1999. In State formation, nation-building, and mass politics in Europe. The theory of Stein Rokkan, Hrsg. Stein Kuhnle, Peter Flora und Derek Urwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens und John D. Stephens. 1992. Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Samuels, Kirsti. 2006. Rule of law reform in post-conflict countries: Operational initiatives and lessons learnt, Social development papers conflict prevention and reconstruction; no. 37. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  80. Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. 2011. Der Rechtsstaat unter den Bedingungen informaler Staatlichkeit. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zum Verhältnis formeller und informeller Institutionen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siaroff, Alan. 2009. Comparing political regimes: A thematic introduction to comparative politics, 2 Aufl. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  82. Skaaning, Svend-Erik. 2010. Measuring the rule of law. Political Research Quarterly 63(2): 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Skocpol, T. 1992. Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Skocpol, Theda. 1985. Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In Bringing the state back in, Hrsg. Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer und Theda Skocpol, 3–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Skocpol, Theda. 2008. Bringing the state back in: Retrospect and prospect. The 2007 Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 31(2): 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Staton, Jeffrey K. 2012. Rule-of-law concepts and rule-of-law models. The Justice System Journal 33(2): 235–241.Google Scholar
  88. Stokes, Susan. 2007. Political Clientelism. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Hrsg. Susan Stokes und Carles Boix, 604–627. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2004. On the rule of law: History, politics, theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Thiery, Peter, Jenniver Sehring, und Wolfgang Muno. 2009. Wie misst man Recht? – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Messung von Rechtsstaatlichkeit. In Interdisziplinäre Rechtsforschung zwischen Rechtswirklichkeit, Rechtsanalyse und Rechtsgestaltung, Hrsg. Josef Estermann, 211–230. Beckenried/Bern: Orlux Verlag und Stämpfli Verlag.Google Scholar
  91. Tilly, Charles. 1985. War making and state making as organized crime. In Bringing the state back in, Hrsg. Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer und Theda Skocpol, 169–187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. von Trotha, Trutz. 2011. Jenseits des Staats: Neue Formen politischer Herrschaft. In Politische Herrschaft jenseits des Staates. Zur Transformation von Legitimität in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Hrsg. John Emeka Akude, Anna Daun, David Egner und Daniel Lambach, 25–50. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. von Trotha, Trutz. 1994. Koloniale Herrschaft: Zur soziologischen Theorie der Staatsentstehung am Beispiel des „Schutzgebietes Togo“. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  95. Vu, Tuong. 2010. Studying the state through state formation. World Politics 62:148–175.Google Scholar
  96. Weber, Max. 1984. Soziologische Grundbegriffe, 6. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  97. Young, Crawford. 1994. The African Colonial State in comparative perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Ziblatt, Daniel. 2006. Structuring the state: The formation of Italy and Germany and the puzzle of federalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dozent am Institut für PolitikwissenschaftUniversität HeidelbergHeidelbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations