- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (65)
Development through capitalism: the only game in town
Human rights for liberals
International injustice: past and present
Partiality against parochialism?
Do affluent countries violate the human rights of the global poor?
- In this article I consider Thomas Pogge’s thesis that affluent countries are violating the human rights of the global poor by contributing support to the current global institutional order. My claim is that affluent countries are not violating the human rights of the global poor in the ways suggested by Pogge. I start by defining a set of conditions that ought to obtain in order to say that a human rights violation has taken place. Then I consider two possible interpretations of Pogge’s thesis and argue that none of them fulfills the conditions required to speak of a human rights violation. On my view, as long as domestic states have the capacity to fulfill the human rights of their own people, poverty constitutes a domestic human rights violation even if the international institutional order somehow contributes to creating this state of affairs. Finally, I examine what transnational duties human rights entail and claim that affluent countries must contribute to the creation of an international order providing domestic states accurate background conditions for the promotion of human rights at the domestic level.
Theorizing fairtrade from a justice-related standpoint
- This paper argues that the Fairtrade certification system represents an illuminating example of the challenge of systematically determining consumer and entrepreneurial responsibilities in our global age. In taking up the central question of what, if anything, may be called ‘just’ or ‘fair’ in Fairtrade, I more precisely argue for a two-fold thesis: that (1) a meaningful evaluation of Fairtrade must consider both an interactional and an (arguably prior) institutional understanding of global responsibilities to promote justice and that (2) Fairtrade can be better defended against several popular objections from the perspective of a theory that adequately differentiates between interactional responsibilities and institutional responsibilities of promoting justice under unjust circumstances.
Ordnung des Fachbereichs Gesellschaftswissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main für den Masterstudiengang Soziologie mit dem Abschluss "Master of Arts" (M.A.) vom 31.05.2010 : vorläufig genehmigt vom Präsidium der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am 27.07.2010
Bräuchler, Birgit (ed.) (2009), Reconciling Indonesia. Grassroots Agency for Peace, London/ New York: Routledge, ISBN-13: 978-0415487047, 272 pages
Religiöse Triebfedern des Rationalisierungsprozesses : individuelles und gemeinschaftliches Leben in einer hugenottischen Neusiedlung des 18. Jahrhunderts
Mass media in the process of transformation in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic after the fall of communism
Angelika Wioletta Wyka-Podkowka
- Hallin and Mancini’s seminal work Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and
Politics has generated great interest and enthusiasm among media scholars to advance comparative
studies by applying the four dimensions to analyze media performance in different countries. Media
scholars agree that the four variables suggested by the two authors, i.e. the structure of media
markets, political parallelism, role of the state, and professionalization of journalism, provide a
good theoretical framework for the analysis of relationship between political and media system.
Their models for comparing media systems are based on a ‘most similar’ strategy,
analysing media and journalism only in stable Western democracies (i.e. Western European and
North American nations), and the purpose of the research presented in this paper was to develop
the model to include other parts of the world as well.
The most recent attempts to integrate East Central European media systems into the Hallin
and Mancini model, the conclusion being that the East Central European media share most
similarities with the Polarized Pluralist model. This conclusion follows not only Hallin and
Mancini, but also Splichal. The researcher in his earlier works argued that the changes in post-
Soviet media systems could be best explained by referring to the concept of Italianization - the
media are under strong state control, the degree of mass media partisanship is strong, low level of
journalistic professionalism, commercialization.
In fact, out of the three models only two (the Liberal and the Democratic Corporatist
model) are models in any strict sense, whereas the third - Polarized Pluralism - is better defined
as the lack of a model: the Liberal and Democratic Corporatist model are both built on a
consensus around core values, whereas the key feature of the Polarized Pluralism model is that
there is no consensus and no core values. De Albuquerque introduced other variables that also
would be highly relevant to the comparative analysis of media systems, but that have no place in
the Hallin & Mancini framework, the most important one being whether the political system is
presidential or parliamentary. For example, it has been demonstrated that media in presidential systems are more likely to focus on individual politicians and the administrative aspects of
government, as well as acting as an intermediary between different branches of government, than
are media in parliamentary systems.
Scholars dealing with the East Central Europe (and elsewhere) are too interested in fitting
their respective nations to one of the three models, rather than focusing on the variables and on the
comparative dimension. The scholars focus on the variables and on the comparative dimension: it
is strucking that their conclusions are precisely that a strict modeling approach (i.e. trying to fit
any given nation into the three-system model) is not enough if we want to understand media
system differences properly.
Hallin and Mancini (2004: 305) write that “The Democratic Corporatist Model, we suspect,
will have particularly strong relevance for the analysis of those parts of Eastern and Central
Europe that share much of the same historical development, like Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, and the Baltic States”. At the same time, however, they suspect that scholars working on
the East Central European media will find much that is relevant in their analysis of the
The recent attempts integrate East Central European media systems into the Hallin and
Mancini model, the conclusion being that the East Central European media share most similarities
with the Polarized Pluralist model. This conclusion follows not only Hallin and Mancini, but also
Splichal. The researcher in his earlier works argued that the changes in post-Soviet media systems
could be best explaind by referring to the concept of Italianization - including the role of
clientelism, the strong role of the state, the role of the media as an instrument of political struggle,
and a low level of journalistic professionalism.
The Polarized Pluralist model all too often seems to be the default model – what is really
gained, analytically, by saying that post-Communist countries are all basically Polarized Pluralist
media system when they are different in many ways. This question needs further elaboration.
Instead of fitting the Italianization model into East Central Europe, scholars should start working on their own model, introducing other variables, that would allow them to investigate the
media in the region adequately.