To cite this Article Fleurke, Frederik and Willemse, Rolf(2006) Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. ABSTRACT This paper explores what is known about the actual impact of the EU on sub-national (local and regional) government. Existing research on the impact of the EU on sub-national authorities appears to have a strong emphasis on the positive effects or the opportunities that emanate from the EU. By contrast, studies on European constraints that limit sub-national autonomy are rather scarce. Moreover, many studies fail to take sub-national government itself as the object of analysis, as a result of which most conclusions are rather hypothetical in nature. Trying to fill the lacunas in the existing literature, the authors present a conceptual framework that includes three dimensions along which the EU might influence sub-national decision-making: by enforcement or invitation, by hampering or improvement, and by obstruction or enabling. A pilot study found that nearly each of these types of influence was present, indicating the conceptual sensitivity and empirical relevance of the three dimensions.
One important objective of introductory courses in public administration is to sensitize students to the difference between two concepts: substantive rationality and political rationality. Both types of rationality play an important role in policy processes. Yet, although the difference is straightforward in theory, and is addressed and well-illustrated in most standard textbooks on public administration, students seem to have difficulty internalizing it. This article reports on our findings from a role-playing game designed to make students experience the difference between policy making as a process of rational design and policy making as a process of political negotiation. We conducted an experiment involving a large group of students enrolled in a first year, one-semester course, and a control group of students who enrolled in the same course 1 year later. The former were tested four times (start of the course, immediately before and after playing the game, and 3 months later) and the latter two times (at the start of the course and at the exam) for their understanding of how policy making—as-rational-design and policy making—as-political-negotiation differ on seven characteristics. Comparison of test results obtained before and after the role-play indicates a positive learning effect for some characteristics, and a negative learning effect for others.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.