Im Westen nichts Neues : zur Tauglichkeit des Imperialismus-Begriffes für die aktuelle Analyse

Rund um den Krieg gegen Jugoslawien erlebte der bereits etwas angestaubte Begriff "Imperialismus" eine erneute Renaissance. Der NATO-Angriff wurde als "imperialistischer Eingriff" tituliert und ganz Hartgesottenen hielten die Lektüre Lenins für unausweichlich, um den Werdegang der Welt zu verstehen. Wir gehen allerdings davon aus, dass der Begriff "Imperialismus", die Realität nicht mehr zu erfassen vermag und folglich auch kein Analyseinstrument mehr darstellt, das Handlungsoptionen aufzeigen kann. Angesichts der weitreichenden Veränderungen der Produktionsformen und politisch-ökonomischen Regulationsmechanismen im Verlauf der letzten zwei Jahrzehnte haben sich die militärischen Interventionen in ihrer Qualität grundlegend verändert. Dies macht sie weder besser noch schlechter als den altbekannten Imperialismus, doch ihre Andersartigkeit verlangt zur Kenntnis genommen zu werden, da es sonst schwer fällt politische Gegenstrategien zu entwickeln

Von Hartz zur Agenda 2010: Die Realpolitik im "aktivierenden Sozialstaat"

In the beginning of their term the Red-Green German Government has resolved to adapt overall policy up to the model (Leitbild) of an "activating welfare state". By means of the recent labour market and social policy reforms according to "Hartz-Commission" and "Agenda 2010" we can see the effects of this Leitbild: a roll back of social rights in favour of individual responsibilities and duties and a redefinition of workers to customers

Workfare als Mindestsicherung: Von der Sozialhilfe zu Hartz IV; Deutsche Sozialpolitik 1962 bis 2005

Die individuelle Möglichkeit, Notwendigkeit sowie Art und Weise, die eigene Arbeitskraft zur Existenzsicherung zu verkaufen, werden von staatlicher Sozialpolitik geformt. Neu an einer Workfare-Politik ist nicht, dass Einzelne ihre Arbeitskraft verkaufen (müssen). Neu an Workfare sind vielmehr die Rahmenbedingungen, die mit sozialpolitischen Maßnahmen gesetzt werden. Anhand der Entwicklung der Mindestsicherung zeichnet das Buch die Ursprünge, Ansätze und Ausdehnung der Workfare-Logik in der deutschen Sozialhilfe von 1962 bis zu deren voller Blüte im SGB II alias Hartz-IV-Gesetz nach

Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs

Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity—variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity—estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs—indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis

Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs

Significance Using experiments involves leeway in choosing one out of many possible experimental designs. This choice constitutes a source of uncertainty in estimating the underlying effect size which is not incorporated into common research practices. This study presents the results of a crowd-sourced project in which 45 independent teams implemented research designs to address the same research question: Does competition affect moral behavior? We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis involving 18,123 experimental participants. Importantly, however, the variation in effect size estimates across the 45 designs is substantially larger than the variation expected due to sampling errors. This “design heterogeneity” highlights that the generalizability and informativeness of individual experimental designs are limited. Abstract Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity—variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity—estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs—indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis

1 kiri L. Puusepale

https://www.ester.ee/record=b5286746*es