Advancing Backwards: Why Institutional Reform of German Federalism Reinforced Joint Decision-Making

Benz, Arthur; Sonnicksen, Jared

doi:10.1093/publius/pjx055

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…level in Germany, the German Länder implement most of the federal laws and regional governments' policies nevertheless vary to a large degree (Jeffery et al, 2014). Furthermore, particularly the last reforms of German federalism increased joint decision-making between the federal and the state level (Benz and Sonnicksen, 2017;Kropp and Behnke, 2016), which gives regional governments still considerable leeway in policy-making. This clearly impacts sub-national parties' campaign strategies, position-taking, and parliamentary behaviour (see, e.g.…”

Section: Which Topics Should Parties Cover In Their Coalition Agreemementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, due to the great extent of joint decision-making authorities in the multi-level system of Germany because of the concurrent legislation by the federal and state level and the fact that 'policy issues often transcend the territorial boarders of Länder jurisdictions' (Kropp and Behnke, 2016, 675), the state and local administrations' role as executing authority for implementing these laws (Benz and Zimmer, 2011), and the federal-state nexus regarding shared taxes (Benz and Sonnicksen, 2017), we also expect that both national and regional, as well as local coalition agreements to some extent also address policy fields that are not in their exclusive realm of policymaking. There are at least four reasons to expect this.…”

Section: Which Topics Should Parties Cover In Their Coalition Agreemementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Topic Coverage of Coalition Agreements in Multi-Level Settings: The Case of Germany

Groß¹,

Krauss

2019

German Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When analysing coalition agreements, scholars mostly concentrate on those agreements that are written at the national level. However, there is also a considerable amount of coalition agreements that are written at sub-national levels. This paper analyses the commonalities and differences in coalition agreements in the German multi-level system at the national, regional and local level. From a legal jurisdiction perspective, one would expect that there are major differences across political levels in the topics covered in the agreements. From a multi-level governance perspective, however, one would additionally expect that government parties also devote their attention to policy domains that lie outside their realm of legislative decision-making. We take Germany as a prime example for a political system characterized by joint decision-making authorities within cooperative federalism. Combining data from the Political Documents Archive (www.polidoc.net) with newly data from the Local Manifesto Project (LMP; www.localpartymanifestos.de), we analyse nearly 200 coalition agreements at the national, regional and local level in Germany by applying quantitative text analysis techniques. The empirical results show that governing parties mostly talk about the policy areas they are legally responsible for. However, particularly local and regional governing parties also address issues that are primarily part of federal jurisdiction.

show abstract

Section: Which Topics Should Parties Cover In Their Coalition Agreemementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Which Topics Should Parties Cover In Their Coalition Agreemementioning

confidence: 99%

Topic Coverage of Coalition Agreements in Multi-Level Settings: The Case of Germany

Groß¹,

Krauss

2019

German Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Councils in Switzerland are all horizontal institutions—their membership does not include the federal government ( Bochsler and Sciarini 2006 ; Schnabel and Mueller 2017 ). Canada and Germany each have a mixture of vertical and horizontal councils ( Adam, Bergeron, and Bonnard 2015 ; Benz 2009a ; Gauvin and Papillon 2020 ; Hegele and Behnke 2013 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Intergovernmental Coordination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Responses in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland

Schnabel

Hegele

2021

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic required prompt action from governments all over the world. In federal systems, it can be important or beneficial to coordinate crisis management between the various governments. The extent to which intergovernmental coordination occurred and the form it took (vertical or horizontal) varied across countries and regarding the measures taken. By examining the introduction and the subsequent easing of containment measures and the procurement of medical supplies in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, this article identifies the circumstances under which intergovernmental coordination occurs. Surprisingly, the existence of strong intergovernmental councils did not lead to closer intergovernmental coordination. Governments coordinated more intensively when jurisdiction was shared, problem pressure was high, and measures were(re-)distributive in nature. Vertical coordination was more likely when vertical intergovernmental councils existed and powers were shared.

show abstract

“…As authority migrated from the federal to the supranational level, they were able to wrest major concessions from the federal government to have co-decision rights in matters related to the European Union (Rowe, 2018;Broschek and Goff, 2020). Therefore, it seems the decision-making style that fosters cooperative federalism and joint decision-making is one of incremental adjustment to multilevel governance (Benz, 2008;Behnke and Benz, 2009;Jensen, 2014;Benz and Sonnicksen, 2018). Despite Germany's formal constitutional structure for shared competences, the ratification of mixed agreements has become increasingly contentious (Hübner et al, 2017;Broschek, 2021).…”

Section: Mediated Contestation In Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany

Egan¹,

Guimarães²

2022

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In developing an extensive network of trade agreements, the European Union has pushed for liberalization commitments that impinge on the competencies of subnational jurisdictions. This raises new challenges in federal systems as the emerging multilevel character of trade politics means subnational authorities could increasingly demand a say in the negotiation or ratification of these trade agreements. To address the tension between subnational regulatory autonomy and collective problem-solving in trade negotiations, Europe needs to avoid suboptimal trade outcomes where actions of contestation by subnational jurisdictions on the grounds of regulatory encroachment can undermine or veto collective agreement. Using the cases of Belgium and Germany, this article illustrates how the growing subnational contestation around trade agreements requires greater coordination and consensus to avoid domestic gridlock in their ratification. The article suggests normative ideas for the EU to address the overlapping authority challenges across multilevel governance. As the values of trade have changed, these normative measures should include the framing of trade narratives, addressing asymmetries of influence, enhancing subnational engagement, and mitigating the distributive costs of liberalization. These avenues for trade policymaking are to be ultimately advantageous for the EU's pursuit of greater integration.

show abstract

Advancing Backwards: Why Institutional Reform of German Federalism Reinforced Joint Decision-Making

Cited by 21 publications

References 34 publications

Topic Coverage of Coalition Agreements in Multi-Level Settings: The Case of Germany

Topic Coverage of Coalition Agreements in Multi-Level Settings: The Case of Germany

Explaining Intergovernmental Coordination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Responses in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland

Trade contestation and regional politics: The case of Belgium and Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About