<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>EconStor Collection:</title>
  <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/171383" />
  <subtitle />
  <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/171383</id>
  <updated>2026-04-29T20:34:18Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-04-29T20:34:18Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>Primary definers of transformation? Actor power and the socio-ecological transformation discourse in Austrian media</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339372" />
    <author>
      <name>Verità, Carlotta</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Theine, Hendrik</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339372</id>
    <updated>2026-04-04T03:30:44Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Primary definers of transformation? Actor power and the socio-ecological transformation discourse in Austrian media
Authors: Verità, Carlotta; Theine, Hendrik
Abstract: This contribution provides a first comprehensive mapping of the socio-ecological transformation (SET) landscape within the Austrian media (2015-2022). Utilizing a multi-layered mixed-methods framework that integrates Named Entity Recognition (NER), Structural Topic Modeling (STM), and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), we examine the "geography of voice" and the competing future-visions that define the mediated transformations. Our analysis reveals a landscape characterized by a dense institutional core where politicians and corporations command over 20% of total visibility, while civil society and international organizations remain less represented. This imbalance mirrors the thematic distribution of discourses, where structurally anchored themes like Nature/Biodiversity and Global Politics are increasingly backgrounded by sector-specific categories like Labour Market &amp; Regulatory Policy. The Market-driven transition imaginary, driven by institutional and corporate actors, dominates material discourses like energy and mobility through techno-optimist framing. Conversely, Contested Disruptions pushed by civil society are frequently marginalized or relegated to cultural niches. By identifying significant silences regarding radical redistribution and the Majority World, we argue that the Austrian media landscape delineates the boundaries of the possible in the ecological crisis.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Capitalism, class relations, and the role of the state in the AI era: A Kaleckian view</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339374" />
    <author>
      <name>Raghavendra, Srinivas</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339374</id>
    <updated>2026-04-04T03:30:45Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Capitalism, class relations, and the role of the state in the AI era: A Kaleckian view
Authors: Raghavendra, Srinivas
Abstract: This paper examines how the financialization of advanced capitalist economies in the 1990s relates to the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as the dominant technological framework in the 21st century. Using insights from political economy and Kaleckian theory, it suggests that AI is not a break from previous trends but a continuation and intensification of the computational rationality developed during the late 20th century's shift toward finance-led capitalism. The study highlights three structural limits that AI introduces to capitalist reproduction: the zero-slack labor constraint, the full-employment constraint, and resource limitations. These limits and their interactions threaten to destabilize the class relationship between capital and labor, the territorial basis of the state, and the legitimacy of democratic capitalism. The paper proposes that the emerging oligarchic state faces a legitimacy crisis that might be alleviated by universal basic income (UBI), which could serve as a political tool to maintain democratic support amid automation and inequality. It concludes by reflecting on how capitalism, much like an adaptive biological system, sustains itself through ongoing structural transformations, reshaping its institutions and practices to enable it to deflect existential threats while preserving its core logic of private appropriation.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Skewed perspectives: Media narratives on wealth-based taxation in German speaking countries</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339373" />
    <author>
      <name>Theine, Hendrik</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Stäudelmayr, Alexander</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Maad, Magdalena</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Grisold, Andrea</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gartiser, Moritz</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339373</id>
    <updated>2026-04-04T03:30:46Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Skewed perspectives: Media narratives on wealth-based taxation in German speaking countries
Authors: Theine, Hendrik; Stäudelmayr, Alexander; Maad, Magdalena; Grisold, Andrea; Gartiser, Moritz
Abstract: Rising wealth inequality is one of the defining challenges of the 21st century, threatening both equal opportunity and the foundations of democratic governance. Yet calls for taxing wealth remain limited, even though such measures could help curb inequality. Recognising the central role of media in shaping public opinion, this article investigates how narratives around wealth taxation are constructed and circulated in the media. Focusing on German-speaking countries- where wealth inequality is particularly pronounced-we employ a mixed-methods approach that combines structural topic modeling with qualitative narrative analysis. Our study identifies ten distinct economic narratives. Anti-tax narratives dominate public discourse, often questioning the feasibility of wealth taxation or framing pro-tax arguments as ideologically driven. In contrast, pro-tax narratives appear less frequently and are primarily oriented around principles of fairness and the need for systemic reform. The findings highlight notable differences in the prevalence and evolution of these narratives across countries and over time, but overall, a skewed perspective on wealth-based taxation.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>The Sociology of Media Ownership Revisited: Benson et al.'s How Media Ownership Matters. A Review Essay</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339360" />
    <author>
      <name>Theine, Hendrik</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339360</id>
    <updated>2026-04-04T03:30:42Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: The Sociology of Media Ownership Revisited: Benson et al.'s How Media Ownership Matters. A Review Essay
Authors: Theine, Hendrik
Abstract: I first heard about the "forthcoming" work by Rodney Benson, Mattias Hessérus, Timothy Neff and Julie Sedel from Victor Pickard while I was at the Media, Inequality, Change Center at University of Pennsylvania in 2022/23. At the time, I was revisiting many of the classics in political economy of the media and sociology of journalism, so I was desperately waiting for the book to appear. Yet the book itself wasn't published for quite a while. When it finally did, my expectations were high. The good news is that the book was worth the wait. How Media Ownership Matters is likely to become a new widely assigned, methodologically influential, go-to reference for media ownership research. It would not be an overstatement to expect it to join the shortlist of field shaping works that scholars still use decades later when they want a rigorous language for "who owns what," and what those ownership structures do to journalism and media reporting. What makes the book stand out is that it does two field-advancing things at once. First, it extends "ownership" as a single variable by developing ownership forms and, crucially, ownership complexes. Second, it backs this framework with a detailed comparative empirical analysis of how these complexes operate in the United States, France, and Sweden. The result is not only a typology, but a sociologically grounded model of ownership as an institutional configuration that shapes newsroom conditions and journalistic performance. In this review essay, I first re-construct the book's central argument and conceptual innovation, focusing on its move from ownership forms to "ownership complexes" as a sociological framework for linking ownership, funding and audiences' strategies. I then discuss the book's comparative empirical contribution, highlighting how the authors operationalize and test ownership complexes across the United States, France, and Sweden. I conclude by reflecting on the book's broader implications and outlining several directions for extending its framework in future research.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>

