Carolyn Rowe

Regional policy variation in Germany: the diversity of living conditions in a ‘unitary federal state’

ABSTRACT The German federal system is conventionally understood as highly co-ordinated between federal and regional governments and aimed at producing a ‘uniformity’ of living conditions. This view has increasingly been challenged as new work focuses on innovation and diversity at the regional level, and also as a consequence of reforms to the federal system that took place in 2006. This contribution attempts to establish a more systematic basis for assessing and explaining the scope and significance of regional policy variation in Germany. Our findings suggest that – despite institutional structures that foster intense co-ordination between central and regional governments and apparent popular preferences for uniformity of policy outcomes – the extent of policy variation in Germany is much greater than conventionally understood and driven both by structural factors and partisan choices at the regional level.

Party Servants, Ideologues or Regional Representatives? The German Länder and the Reform of Federalism

This article considers recent attempts to reform German federalism, the failed 2004 reform, and the reforms agreed in 2006 and 2009. It compares partisan, ideological and territorial factors which contribute to an understanding of reform, finding that all three have a role in explaining actors’ views of reform proposals. Two other claims are developed: that in some aspects of the reforms, a division between ‘generalist’ and ‘subject specialist’ politicians became apparent; and that a decisive change between 2004 and 2006 was the formation of a grand coalition at a federal level, which paved the way for agreement upon reform proposals.

Disentangling Double Politikverflechtung? The implications of the federal reforms for Bund-Länder relations on Europe

The recent reforms of German federalism (Reform I) have established a new framework for Bund–Länder co-operation on EU policy. These seek to safeguard Germanys ability to co-operate in Europe by disentangling the joint roles and responsibilities bound up within the complex arrangements of the EU policy-making system, defined as a multiple framework of joint decisions, or doppelte Politikverflechtung. Whilst on the surface, the reforms enacted may be read as a success for the Länder in their bid to secure autonomy on European issues, closer analysis reveals that these changes may in fact hamper the Länder agenda on European issues, closing off new opportunities for influence.

How Germany Unified and the EU Enlarged: Negotiating the Accession through Transplantation and Adaptation

of parties and associations, criminal containment, and surveillance in Germany and the broad toleration of non-violent extremist activities in the US. The first two clusters moreover provide explanations for the contrasting approaches, such as the differing historical experiences with political extremism and differences in the electoral system, protecting the American political system much better from the entrance of small extremist parties than the German one. Flümann furthermore aims at evaluating the two approaches from a normative perspective of democratic legitimacy. Even though his assessment criteria remain relatively vague, he compiles several recommendations which have the potential to enrich reform debates on both sides of the Atlantic. The book focuses primarily on non-violent right-wing and left-wing extremism. Flümann himself admits that these are, with the exception of the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), only a marginal phenomenon in both countries. They definitely do not pose a threat to the existence of democracy. One is therefore left wondering whether the inclusion of state responses to more recent threats, such as extremist Islamism, would have been a valuable addition to the analysis.

Introduction to the special issue : reframing German Federalism

In recent years, Germanys federal system has been subject to a number of pressures for change. A constitutional debate on ‘disentangling’ the legislative roles of federal and Länder institutions which stuttered through the 1990s and into the 2000s finally led to a re-allocation of competences in 2006. These reforms shifted some areas of legislative responsibility from the federal to the Länder level and relaxed rules which had earlier justified a federal override when both levels held legislative responsibilities concurrently. At the very least, these constitutional adjustments increased the potential for policy outputs to diverge from one Land to another and give expression to territorial differences in priority and preference.

Justice and prisons policy

The field of justice policy is, of course, a critical one for state activity – indeed, arguably it is the most important field of activity, as the state exercises its ability to develop and enforce its rules, including by depriving individuals of their liberty. Notwithstanding this, scholarship in the field was, for many years, dominated by experts coming from different perspectives of legal studies, rather than political science. Nowadays, that has shifted somewhat, as interest in the activity of constitutional courts in political systems has grown, inspired, for instance, by the work of Martin Shapiro, Alec Stone Sweet, R. Daniel Kelemen and many others (e. g. Shapiro 1988; Shapiro and Stone 1994; Stone Sweet 2000; Shapiro and Stone Sweet 2002; Kelemen 2006).

Let's stick together? Explaining boundaries to territorial policy variation:the case of Germany's prisons legislation

This article offers an initial impact assessment regarding the introduction of new legislative responsibilities at the Land level in a case study of prisons policy (Strafvollzug). Combining an analysis of new legislation produced across the 16 Länder since the responsibility for prisons policy was transferred to the Land level, and insights into the mechanics of policy development obtained through a series of interviews with senior politicians and officials, this article finds that the desire among Länder to legislative independently has varied, with substantial backing for co-ordination in the development of new legislation. This has helped to confound expectations of a ‘competition of harshness’ which many expected to result from decentralisation. However, even before the 2006 reforms, there were substantial variations between the Länder when it came to implementing prisons policy, so consideration of the sub-national level in this area remains essential.

Regional Representations in the EU: An Introduction

What are regional representations in the EU? A stroll around the EU quarter of Brussels will take you past several of the highest-profile representative offices. Scores of others — individual representations, joint representations — are situated in the maze of streets in and around the Schuman and Place Luxembourg districts of Brussels. But do we really understand what these representations are? Why are they there? What are they doing? Who is running them? Are they delivering a real service to regions? And are they having any impact by being active in Brussels?

Strategic Direction and Accountability

The complexity of the domestic arrangements underpinning the work of regional representations in the EU is not well understood. To the contrary; analyses of European integration, lobbying and interest mediation as well as studies of the dynamics of multi-level governance tend to group together the “regional lobby” or the regional voice in Europe. A more nuanced analysis of the partnership arrangements within the domestic system at the regional level yields essential data which can help to distinguish various sets of motivations and goals amongst Brussels regional representations. Breaking down regional representations into types shows the extent to which such motivations diverge.

Regional Offices and the Domestic Politics of Europe

Since they first emerged on the European scene in the 1980s, regional representations in the EU have carved out a niche role for themselves on the EU institutional landscape and have established a foothold as partners and interlocutors in the decision-making and policy arena which pulsates in Europe’s capital city. But this role has developed over time. In many instances, particularly for the constitutional regions, the first wave of EU representations were reproached overstepping the boundaries of their legitimate role in international affairs, and were challenged — in some cases through the courts — by national governments. In other instances, more modest aspirations were quickly met, and the perceived value added by a Brussels base led to their rapid expansion over time.