Advertisement

Demokratisierung als organisationales Feld

Netzwerkanalytische Perspektiven auf externe Demokratieförderung
  • Susann Worschech
Part of the Netzwerkforschung book series (NETZFO)

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Aufsatz geht der Frage nach, wie heterogene Politikbereiche feldtheoretisch konzipiert und netzwerkanalytisch betrachtet werde können. Am Beispiel der externen Demokratieförderung in der Ukraine wird gezeigt, wie sich die unterschiedlichen Förderer auf der Basis ihrer Strategien und regionalen Zugehörigkeiten positionieren und dadurch eine informelle Struktur der Förderlandschaft entstehen lassen. Durch die Kombination von Feld-, Zentralitäts- und Homophilieanalysen wird es möglich, die Vielfalt der Demokratieförderung abzubilden, indem Homogenisierungsprozesse, hierarchische Aspekte der Angleichung, aber auch innovatives Handeln und Differenzierung von Strategien der Förderung betrachtet und systematisiert werden. Der Aufsatz leistet ein Beitrag zu einer soziologischen Fundierung und methodologischen Erweiterung der Erforschung transnationaler Verflechtungen und Demokratisierung.

Schlüsselwörter

Organisationales Feld Ukraine Externe Demokratieförderung Homophilie Isomorphie Politikfeldanalyse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Anheier, Helmut K., J. Gerhards, und F. Romo. 1995. Forms of Capital and Social Structure in Cultural Fields: Examining Bourdieu’s Social Topography. American Journal of Sociology 100:859–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldassarri, Delia, und M. Diani. 2007. The Integrative Power of Civic Networks. American Journal of Sociology 113:735–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beichelt, Timm. 2010. Externe Demokratieförderung. Neue Politische Literatur 55:447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beichelt, Timm. 2012. The research field of democracy promotion. Living Reviews in Democracy.Google Scholar
  5. Beichelt, Timm, und W. Merkel. 2014. Democracy Promotion and Civil Society: Regime Types, Transitions Modes and Effects. In Civil Society and Democracy Promotion, Hrsg. Timm Beichelt, Irene Hahn-Fuhr, Frank Schimmelfennig, und Susann Worschech. Challenges to democracy in the 21st century, 42-64. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bonacich, Phillip. 1987. Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures. American Journal of Sociology 92:1170–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgatti, Stephen P., M. G. Everett, und J. C. Johnson. 2013. Analyzing social networks. Los Angeles [i. e. Thousand Oaks, Calif.], London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Börzel, Tanja A. 2010. The Transformative Power of Europe Reloaded. The Limits of External Europeanization. KFG Working Papers 11. Berlin: Research College “The Transformative Power of Europe”, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. Börzel, Tanja A., und A. Buzogány. 2010. Governing EU accession in transition countries: The role of non-state actors. Acta Politica 45:158–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Börzel, Tanja A., und T. Risse. 2009. Venus Approaching Mars? The EU’s Approaches to Democracy Promotion in Comparative Perspective. In Promoting democracy and the rule of law. American and European strategies, Hrsg. Amichai A. Magen, Mark Riddle, und Michael McFaul, 34-60. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Bottero, Wendy, und N. Crossley. 2011. Worlds, Fields and Networks. Becker, Bourdieu and the Structures of Social Relations. Cultural Sociology 5:99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, Pierre, und L. J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brucker, Matthias. 2007. Trans-national Actors in Democratizing States: The Case of German Political Foundations in Ukraine. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 23:296–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnell, Peter, Hrsg. 2000. Democracy Assistance: International Co-Operation for Democratization. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  15. Burnell, Peter. 2011. Promoting Democracy Abroad: Policy and Performance: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Burt, Ronald S., 1982. Toward a structural theory of action. Network models of social structure, perception, and action. New York, London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burt, Ronald S. 2004. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110:349–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carmin, JoAnn. 2010. NGO capacity and environmental governance in Central and Eastern Europe. Acta Politica 45:183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carothers, Thomas. 1999. Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press.Google Scholar
  20. Diaz-Bone, Rainer. 2006. Statistik für Soziologen, Bd. 2782. Konstanz: UVK Verl.-Ges.Google Scholar
  21. DiMaggio, Paul J. 1986. Structural analysis of organizational fields: A blockmodel approach. Research in Organizational Behavior 8:335–370.Google Scholar
  22. DiMaggio, Paul J., und W. W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48:147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiMaggio, Paul J., und W. W. Powell. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 0002. Aufl. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Pr.Google Scholar
  24. Eder, Klaus. 2009. The making of a European civil society: „Imagined“, „practised“ and „staged“. Policy and Society 28:22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103:281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Finkel, Steven E., Pérez Liñan, Aníbal S., und M. A. Seligson. 2007. The Effects of U.S. Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building, 1990-2003. World Politics 59:404–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finnemore, Martha, und K. Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52:887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fligstein, Neil, und D. McAdam. 2011. Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields. Sociological Theory 29:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Friedkin, Noah E. 1984. Structural Cohesion and Equivalence Explanations of Social Homogeneity. Sociological Methods & Research 12:235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galaskiewicz, Joseph. 1985. Professional Networks and the Institutionalization of a Single Mind Set. American Sociological Review 50:639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galaskiewicz, Joseph, W. Bielefeld, und M. Dowell. 2006. Networks and Organizational Growth: A Study of Community Based Nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly 51:337–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hahn-Fuhr, Irene, und S. Worschech. 2014. External Democracy Promotion and Divided Civil Society – the Missing Link. In Civil Society and Democracy Promotion, Hrsg. Timm Beichelt, Irene Hahn-Fuhr, Frank Schimmelfennig, und Susann Worschech. Challenges to democracy in the 21st century, 11-41. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Hannan, Michael T., G. R. Carroll, und L. Polos. 2003. The Organizational Niche. Sociological Theory 21:309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hannan, Michael Thomas, und J. Freeman. 1993. Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  35. Henderson, Sarah L. 2002. Selling Civil Society. Comparative Political Studies 35:139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howard, Marc M. 2002. The Weakness of Postcommunist Civil Society. Journal of Democracy 13:157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howard, Marc Morjé. 2003. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ishkanian, Armine. 2007. Democracy Promotion and Civil Society. In Global civil society: communicative power and democracy, Hrsg. Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius, und Mary Kaldor, 58-85. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Jünemann, Annette, und M. Knodt. 2007. Explaining EU-Instruments and Strategies of EU Democracy Promotion. Concluding Remarks. In Externe Demokratieförderung durch die Europäische Union, Hrsg. Annette Jünemann, und Michèle Knodt. Schriftenreihe des Arbeitskreises Europäische Integration e. V. , Bd. 58, 1. Aufl., 353-369. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keck, Margaret E., und K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders. Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Keck, Margaret E., und K. Sikkink. 1999. Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal 51:89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kluge, Susann. 1999. Empirisch begründete Typenbildung. Zur Konstruktion von Typen und Typologien in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knoke, David, und R. S. Burt. 1983. Prominence. In Applied network analysis. A methodological introduction, Hrsg. Ronald S. Burt, und Michael J. Minor, 195-224. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Krackhardt, David. 1992. The Strength of Strong Ties. In Networks and organizations. Structure, form, and action, Hrsg. Nitin Nohria, und Robert G. Eccles, 216-239. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kutter, Amelie, und V. Trappmann. 2010. Civil society in Central and Eastern Europe: The ambivalent legacy of accession. Acta Politica 45:41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levitsky, Steven, und L. A. Way. 2005. International Linkage and democratization. Journal of Democracy 16:20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mandel, Ruth. 2002. Das Säen der Zivilgesellschaft in Zentralasien. In Postsozialismus. Transformationsprozesse in Europa und Asien aus ethnologischer Perspektive, Hrsg. C. M. Hann, 401-424. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  48. Mayring, Philipp. 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 11. Aufl. Weinheim [u. a.]: Beltz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McPherson, Miller, L. Smith-Lovin, und J. M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mendelson, Sarah E., und J. K. Glenn, Hrsg. 2002. The Power and Limits of Ngos: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mische, Ann. 2007. Partisan Publics: Communication and Contention Across Brazilian Youth Activist Networks. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mützel, Sophie, und J. A. Fuhse, Hrsg. 2010. Relationale Soziologie. zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung. Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  53. Petrova, Tsveta. 2012. How Poland Promotes Democracy. Journal of Democracy 23:133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petrova, Tsveta, und S. Tarrow. 2007. Transactional and Participatory Activism in the Emerging European Polity: The Puzzle of East-Central Europe. Comparative Political Studies 40:74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pishchikova, Kateryna. 2007. What happened after the ’end of history’? Foreign aid and civic organizations in Ukraine. In Civil societies and social movements, Hrsg. Derrick A. Purdue. Routledge ECPR studies in European political science, Bd. 49, 35-52. London [u. a.]: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Pishchikova, Kateryna. 2010. Promoting Democracy in Postcommunist Ukraine. The Contradictory Outcomes of US Aid to Women’s NGOs. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Podolny, Joel M., und K. L. Page. 1998. Network Forms of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology 24:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Powell, Walter W., D. R. White, K. W. Koput, und J. Owen‐Smith. 2005. Network Dynamics and Field Evolution. The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110:1132–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pridham, Geoffrey. 1991. International Influences and Democratic Transition: Problems of Theory and Practice in Likange Politics. In Encouraging democracy. The international context of regime transition in Southern Europe, Hrsg. Geoffrey Pridham. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Pridham, Geoffrey. 2000. The dynamics of democratization. A comparative approach. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  61. Raik, Kristi. 2006a. Promoting democracy in the eastern neighbourhood ‐ the limits and potential of the ENP. The International Spectator 41:31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raik, Kristi. 2006b. Promoting Democracy through Civil Society. How to Step up the EU’s Policy towards the Eastern Neighbourhood. CEPS Working Document No. 237/February 2006. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  63. Richter, Solveig. 2009. Zur Effektivität externer Demokratisierung. Die OSZE in Südosteuropa als Partner, Mahner, Besserwisser? 1. Aufl. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  64. Sasse, Gwendolyn. 2007. ‘Conditionality-lite’: The European Neighbourhood Policy and the EU’s Eastern Neighbours. In European foreign policy in an evolving international system. The road towards convergence, Hrsg. Nicola Casarini, und Costanza Musu. Palgrave studies in European Union politics, 163-180. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schimmelfennig, Frank, und H. Scholtz. 2008. EU Democracy Promotion in the European Neighbourhood. Political Conditionality, Economic Development and Transnational Exchange. European Union Politics 9:187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schimmelfennig, Frank, und U. Sedelmeier, Hrsg. 2005. The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Schimmelfennig, Frank, und U. Sedelmeier. 2011. Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 11:661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Spanger, Hans-Joachim, und J. Wolff. 2007. Why promote democratization? Reflections on the instrumental value of democracy. In Democracy, Europe’s Core Value?: On the European Profile in World-wide Democracy Assistance, Hrsg. M. van Doorn, und R. von Meijenfeldt, 33-49. Deflt: Eburon.Google Scholar
  69. Tilly, Charles. 2004. Social Boundary Mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34:211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. 1. Aufl. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Trappmann, Mark, H. J. Hummell, und W. Sodeur. 2011. Strukturanalyse sozialer Netzwerke. Konzepte, Modelle, Methoden. 2., überarb. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS-Verl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trezzini, Bruno. 2010. Netzwerkanalyse, Emergenz und die Mikro-Makro-Problematik. In Handbuch Netzwerkforschung, Hrsg. Christian Stegbauer. Netzwerkforschung, Bd. 4, 1. Aufl., 193-204. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vobruba, Georg. 2009. Die Gesellschaft der Leute. 1. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wasserman, Stanley, und K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. White, Harrison C. 2008. Identity and control. How social formations emerge. 2. Aufl. Princeton, NJ [u. a.]: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wollack, Kenneth. 2008. Democracy Promotion: Serving U.S. Values and Interests. Northwestern University Law Review 102:433–463.Google Scholar
  77. Worschech, Susann. 2018 – im Erscheinen. Die Herstellung von Zivilgesellschaft. Netzwerke der Demokratieförderung in der Ukraine. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Youngs, Richard. 2008. What Has Europe Been Doing? Journal of Democracy 19:160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Frankfurt (Oder)Deutschland

Personalised recommendations