Corruption and support for decentralisation

Existing explanations of individual preferences for decentralisation and secession focus on collective identity, economic considerations and party politics. This paper contributes to this literature by showing that preferences for fiscal and political decentralisation are also driven by concern about the quality of government in the face of corruption. It makes two claims. Firstly, information on national‐level corruption decreases satisfaction with national politicians, and subsequently increases preferences for decentralisation and secession. Secondly, information on regional‐level corruption pushes citizens of highly corrupt regions to prefer national retrenchment and unitary states. The effects of this political compensation mechanism crosscut national identities and involve regions that are not ethnically or economically different from the core. We test our argument using a survey experiment in Spain and confirm its cross‐national generalisability with data from the European Values Study

Constitutional dynamics and partisan conflict:A comparative assessment of multi-level systems in Europe

publication-status: Publishedtypes: ArticleThe case studies revealed that the constitutional nature of a multi-level system indeed shapes its modes of day-to-day intergovernmental coordination and, with it, the way competences are (re)allocated in the longer term. Both in federal arrangements and in confederations, the ‘subunits’ – whose status is constitutionally protected – could more easily defend their decision-making capacity within their areas of jurisdiction because they can veto changes in the allocation of competences, an advantage lower-level governments in regionalized systems do not enjoy. Similarly, in federal and confederal systems day-to-day interaction in Inter Governmental Relations (IGR) predominantly took place in multilateral structures, while in regionalized systems bilateralism was more pronounced. The relative influence of party-political (in)congruence on IGR, in contrast, was more varied than theoretically expected

Quem ganhou as eleições?: a validação dos resultados antes da criação da justiça eleitoral

O presente artigo revisita a Primeira República brasileira (1894-1930) para elucidar a dinâmica político-partidária do contencioso eleitoral numa fase anterior à consagração da magistratura enquanto órgão proclamador da verdade das urnas, prerrogativa instituída somente com o Código de 1932. Recorremos à crítica dos protestos eleitorais e de suas refutações, quando existentes, apresentados por adversários políticos frente aos resultados dos escrutínios para a Câmara Federal - fontes ainda inéditas, disponíveis nos Diários e Anais da própria Casa legislativa. Os dados levantados mostram que, ao contrário da visão disseminada pela literatura, a degola das oposições não era usual, mas restrita a anos críticos, quando o situacionismo local não conseguia coordenar as disputas regionais pelo poder. Na maioria dos casos, o parlamento, que arbitrava sobre o reconhecimento dos seus diplomados, tendia a ratificar as escolhas adotadas ao nível subnacional. Desta forma, o caso brasileiro alerta para o fato de não se poder ler a adoção de tribunais independentes como mera resposta à solução do contencioso político que ocorria no parlamento, bem limitado. Tal achado nos permite pensar, antes, o advento da Justiça Eleitoral dentro de um projeto de reforma política mais ampla, incluindo a defesa de mecanismos democráticos para as eleições e que antecedem a validação dos votos

How Did Europe Democratize?

How was democracy achieved in nineteenth-century Europe? This article reviews fours recent books that bring democracy's first wave "back in" to mainstream political science. By launching an important two-way interchange between earlier and subsequent waves of democratization, the books address three core questions: what prompts democratic openings; who are the most important actors in the push for democratization; and once undertaken, how is democracy secured. The four works offer different and at times competing answers to these questions, but all suggest that democracy's first wave was neither exceptional nor inevitable. Instead, it was marked by its own share of concessions and uncertainties, indicating the enduring relevance of Europe's democratization for contemporary cases

The Historical Turn in Democratization Studies: A new research program and evidence from Europe

Introductory theory article to the special double issue of Comparative Political Studies edited by Capoccia and Ziblatt (Aug/Sept 2010

The Historical Turn in Democratization Studies

Special double issue (Aug/Sept 2010) of Comparative Political Studies on theory and methodology of the study of democratic institutions, their genesis and development, in the European context

A More Efficient and Accountable Federalism? An Analysis of the Consequences of Germany’s 2006 Constitutional Reform

The German federal reform adopted in 2006 aims to enhance efficiency and accountability of governance by disentangling the intertwined levels of government and by reducing the veto rights of the Bundesrat, Germany’s strong second chamber. In this article, we assess the degree to which reform in these areas has been fulfilled. In particular we ask if the reform will i) accelerate the legislative decision-making process, ii) expand the freedom of political action of the federal government and iii) disentangle the competencies between the intertwined levels of German government. Our analysis shows a remarkable gap between the ambitious goals of reformers and the reality of the actual reform outcome