Search

In recent years, the transition from higher education to work in comparative perspective has attracted increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. Previous studies reveal similarities and differences in labour market outcomes across countries, but explanatory frameworks mainly refer to fields of study, whereas differences by types of institutions and types of degrees remain largely descriptive. Therefore, this paper specifically focuses on these institutional structures by arguing that the institutional stratification of higher education systems is crucial for shaping graduate employment prospects. More specifically, it is assumed that the higher the vertical differentiation of types of institutions or types of degrees, the stronger the differences of employment outcomes. This assumption is tested empirically by analysing two country cases most different in the institutional set-up of their higher education systems: Germany and Britain. By applying hazard models to the German Socio-Economic Panel and two British cohort studies (NCDS and BCS70), the paper shows that the vertical differentiation of British higher education institutions and degrees differentiates the transitions to the service class more strongly than in Germany. Thus, for understanding transition patterns from higher education to work in comparative perspective, it is necessary to take into account the institutional structure of higher education systems. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper is an introductory survey of the evolution of multiculturalism in Britain and Germany over the past two centuries. The historical approach argues that the main determinants of difference between these nation states lie in their long-term traditional attitudes towards immigrants and ethnic minorities. It focuses upon the patterns of immigration into Britain and Germany as well as the differing imperial traditions, which have both left differing legacies. An equally important historical factor has been the legal position of aliens in the two states, in which, until very recently, Britain adopted a policy of ;MS solis, whereas Germany pursued one of jus sanguinis. The paper then examines the realities of multiculturalism in the two states. Due primarily to the historical traditions of nationality legislation, immigrants and their descendants in Britain have come to play a more important role in recent British history than their contemporaries in Germany, particularly if we examine their role in the political process and in popular culture. While the conclusion reiterates the differences, it also stresses that we should not view Britain and Germany as the opposite ends of the multicultural spectrum, as both are modem liberal democracies with significant ethnic minority populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

British politicians often argued that Britain maintained its navy only in order to secure its own survival by keeping sea communications open, while Germany in no real need of a powerful navy, threatened this legitimate British policy-goal by pursuing expansionist politics. German leaders, emboldened and a little dazzled by the tremendous industrial and economic success of the newly unified Reich, held that Britain was maintaining its economic dominance in the Empire by military means and thus blocking the progress Germany hoped to make in its aspiration to parity status and economic prosperity, with all that that entailed. This paper will explore the underlying rationale of the arms race between Britain and Germany shining through in those different positions on legitimate (military) policy aims. It will go beyond the visible symbols, as it were, of the Dreadnought and the Two-Power standard. These very concrete matters will also be dealt with here but, more importantly, this essay is meant to give some answer as to whether an archetypal differentiation between survival on the one hand and domination on the other can be made out as the predominant logic that led the two countries to embark on the road to the Great War. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With more than 10 million Muslims living in Western Europe, states are struggling to accommodate the religious needs of Muslims in state-supported institutions. Such issues include whether to fund separate Islamic schools and how or whether to teach Islam in state-supported schools. Despite these common concerns, national governments vary widely in their response to the religious needs and practices of Muslim citizens and permanent residents. This paper looks at how Britain, France and Germany have resolved these issues. We explore how pre-existing Church-State practices and institutional arrangements structured the politics of state accommodation of Muslims' religious needs in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Europeanization, differentiated from European integration as the impact of European policies on national policies, practices, and politics, has had differing effects on EU member states, depending upon a number of independent variables. These include the constraints imposed by EU decisions in any given policy area, that is, whether the decisions demand that countries follow highly specified rules of implementation, less specified rules, suggested rules, or no rules at all. But adjustment also depends upon certain mediating factors, including countries' vulnerability to global as well as European economic pressures, their political institutional capacity to respond as necessary, the 'fit' of European policies with national policy legacies and preferences, and the discourses that influence policy preferences by changing perceptions of economic vulnerabilities and policies and thereby enhance capacity. Only by putting the decision constraints together with the mediating factors can we adequately explain countries' differential policy outcomes, whether inertia, absorption, or transformation. To illustrate, this paper considers three countries, France, Britain, and Germany, across a representative range of economic policy areas, including monetary policy, financial services, telecommunications, electricity, transport, and mutual recognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the impact on the professions of changes in their institutional environment during the past two decades. A comparison is made between two professions - solicitors/advocates and pharmacists - in the contrasting institutional contexts of British and German society. It is suggested that, despite common pressures from the state and the market, there remains a significant degree of diversity in the way professions organize themselves in the two societies. A contrast is drawn between British modernizers and German traditionalists, but some convergence is also noted. In both Britain and Germany, professional authority and privilege can no longer be taken for granted but have to be earned by proven performance and enhanced accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]