No Exit from the Joint Decision Trap? Can German Federalism Reform Itself?

Germany's unique institutions of a 'unitary federal state', long considered part of the country's post-war success story, are now generally perceived as a 'joint decision trap' impeding effective policy responses to new economic and demographic challenges at both levels of government. Nevertheless, a high powered bi-cameral Commission set up in Autumn 2003 failed to reach agreement on constitutional reforms. The paper analyses the misguided procedural and substantive choices that explain the failure of reform, and it discusses the possibility of asymmetric constitutional solutions that might enhance the capacity for autonomous action at both levels.Germany; federalism; constitutional change; multilevel governance

Institutions in comparative policy research

--

The Asymmetry of European Integration - or why the EU cannot be a Social Market Economy

Judge-made law has played a crucial role in the process of European integration. In the vertical dimension, it has greatly reduced the range of autonomous policy choices in the member states, and it has helped to expand the reach of European competences. At the same time, however, Integration through Law does have a liberalizing and deregulatory impact on the socio-economic regimes of EU member states. This effect is generally compatible with the status quo in Liberal Market Economies, but it tends to undermine the institutions and policy legacies of Continental and Scandinavian Social Market Economies. Given the high consensus requirements of European legislation, this structural asymmetry cannot be corrected through political action at the European level.social policy; integration theory; law; competences; Europeanization; Europeanization

No exit from the joint decision trap? Can German federalism reform itself?

The unique institutions that make up Germany's unitary federal state, long considered part of the country's post-war success story, are now generally perceived as a joint-decision trap impeding effective policy responses to new economic and demographic challenges at both levels of government. Nevertheless, a high-powered bicameral Commission set up in the fall of 2003 failed to reach agreement on constitutional reforms. The paper analyzes the misguided procedural and substantive choices that led to this failure, and it discusses the possibility of asymmetric constitutional solutions that might enhance the capacity for autonomous action at both levels. -- Die im internationalen Vergleich einmaligen Institutionen des unitarischen Bundesstaats erschienen lange as Element der deutschen Erfolgsgeschichte in der Nachkriegszeit. Heute erscheinen sie jedoch als Politikverflechtungsfalle, welche die Politik in Bund und Ländern an der Bewältigung der neuen ökonomischen und demographischen Herausforderungen hindert. Trotzdem gelang es einer im Herbst 2003 eingesetzten und politisch potent besetzten gemeinsamen Kommission von Bundestag und Bundesrat nicht, sich auf eine Verfassungsreform zu einigen. Der Text analysiert die prozeduralen und sachlichen Fehlentscheidungen, die das Scheitern erklären, und er erörtert die Möglichkeit asymmetrischer Lösungen, die den Spielraum für autonomes politisches Handeln auf beiden staatlichen Ebenen erweitern könnten.

Dangerous Alliances: Populists and the Military

Across Latin America, alliances between politicians and officers are again enabling the military to influence politics and policies. In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro has given a significant share of cabinet seats to current or former officers. While some have argued that soldiers may offer the incorruptible expertise needed for solving the region's pressing problems, Latin America's painful history suggests otherwise. The military is once again stepping into the political arena. Soldiers have been granted greater operational autonomy, are being deployed internally, shielded from civil persecution, and again holding important cabinet and ministerial posts. Although straight-out military regimes are unlikely to occur in the region any time soon, Latin America's history offers a strong warning against the military's expanding political role. Where soldiers gained political influence in the past, democratic institutions, civil liberties, and human rights came under pressure. With the region's structural problems of violence, corruption, and inequality unresolved, the demand for drastic solutions have intensified. Citizens and politicians alike see in officers the apolitical, incorruptible, and effective policymakers capable of solving the region's most pressing problems. The armed forces for their part have often gladly taken up the offer to enter the political arena. In search of purpose and orientation, assuming political roles promise the militaries new tasks, more resources, and the opportunity to restore lost prestige. The case of Brazil shows how swiftly soldiers can regain influence over political decisions in democracies. An increasing political role for the military seems likely across the region; with it, all the detrimental consequences for political opposition and civil society groups will ensue. Only if the political considerations of both government leaders and military decision makers change will it be possible to halt the militarisation of Latin American politics

Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy

The function of legitimacy is to ensure voluntary compliance with unwelcome exercises of governing authority. Since practically all European law needs to be implemented and enforced by the governments and courts of the member states, the EU does not have to face its citizens directly. It follows that the legitimacy of European governance ought to be conceptualized at two levels. At one level, the legitimacy of member states is decisive for the compliance of individuals and firms, regardless of the ultimate origin – international, European or national – of the rules that demand this compliance. At the other level, the legitimacy of the European “government of governments” is decisive for the voluntary compliance of member states with the obligations imposed on them by the EU. What should be worrying however is the impact which EU governance – especially the rules of negative integration defi ned by politically non-accountable actors – may have on the legitimacy of member states, and ultimately on their capacity to comply.Legitimität hat die Funktion, die freiwillige Befolgung unwillkommener Autoritätsakte zu sichern. Da das Europarecht fast vollständig von den Mitgliedstaaten und ihren Gerichten umgesetzt und durchgesetzt werden muss, kommt es nicht zu einer unmittelbaren Konfrontation der EU mit ihren Bürgern. Deshalb sollte auch die Legitimität des Regierens in Europa als Zweistufen-Konzept diskutiert werden. Auf der einen Ebene bestimmt die Legitimität der Mitgliedstaaten die Reaktion der Bürger auf unwillkommene Regeln oder Entscheidungen, ohne dass es dafür auf deren internationale, europäische oder nationale Herkunft ankäme. Dagegen entscheidet die Legitimität der EU als „government of governments“ darüber, ob die Mitgliedstaaten ihrerseits ihre europäischen Verpflichtungen freiwillig erfüllen. Anlass zu Besorgnis gibt allenfalls die Rückwirkung des europäischen Regierens – insbesondere der von politisch nicht verantwortlichen Instanzen definierten negativen Integration – auf die Legitimität der Mitgliedstaaten und letztlich auf deren Fähigkeit zur loyalen Umsetzung europäischer Regeln.1 Democracy and multilevel polities 2 Legitimacy – functional, normative and empirical 3 Two normative implications 4 European constraints on the political legitimacy of member states 5 Negative integration and empirical legitimacy? 6 So what could be done? Reference

European Governance: Common Concerns vs. the Challenge of Diversity

The text is a comment on the White Paper on "European Governance" presented by the European Commission (COM[2001] 428, 25.7.2001). It begins by confronting the Commission's emphases with the governance problems that it fails to address, including the unresolved difficulties of economic-policy coordination among EMU member states, the adjustments of governance practices required by Eastern enlargement and, above all, the challenges implied by the fundamental shift of the European agenda - from the problems of achieving economic integration to the problems of coping with the consequences of economic integration. The primary proposals of the White Paper - reducing the involvement of the Council and the European Parliament in "details" of legislation and strengthening the role of the Commission at the expense of member states - would exceed the legitimacy of European institutions and they would also reduce the problem-solving capacity of European governance. European policy must be consensual if it is to be effective and legitimate. Hence it cannot short-circuit the efforts to achieve agreement among member states, even though it is increasingly confronted with problems for which uniform, Europe-wide solutions are not acceptable. Regrettably, the White Paper does not seem to be sufficiently interested in two modes of governance - "closer cooperation" and "open coordination" - that seem to have the potential for improving both the effectiveness and legitimacy of European policy in the face of continuing diversity.Der Text kommentiert das Weißbuch der Europäischen Kommission zu Fragen der "European Governance" (KOM[2001] 428, 25.7.2001). Eingangs werden die Vorschläge der Kommission den Problemen des europäischen Regierens gegenübergestellt, die das Weißbuch nicht behandelt. Dazu gehören u.a. die ungelösten Probleme der Koordination der nationalen Wirtschaftspolitik unter den Bedingungen der Währungsunion und die Probleme einer im Zuge der Osterweiterung erforderliche Differenzierung des europäischen Acquis. Vor allem aber fehlt jede Auseinandersetzung mit der grundlegenden Änderung der Anforderungen an die europäische Politik - von der Vollendung der wirtschaftlichen Integration zur Bewältigung ihrer Folgeprobleme. Die Vorschläge des Weißbuchs laufen darauf hinaus, die Rolle des Ministerrats und des Europäischen Parlaments auf die Festlegung von Grundsätzen zu beschränken und die Rolle der Kommission auf Kosten der Mitgliedstaaten wesentlich zu stärken. Eine Umsetzung dieser Vorschläge müßte jedoch die Grenzen der Legitimation der europäischen Institutionen überschreiten und zugleich die Problemlösungsfähigkeit der europäischen Politik vermindern. Die Union könnte die Suche nach einvernehmlichen Lösungen nicht aufgeben, ohne die Effektivität und Legitimität der europäischen Politik zu untergraben. Sie ist jedoch zunehmend mit Problemen konfrontiert, die nicht mehr durch einheitliche Regeln gelöst werden können. Aussichtsreich wären hier vielleicht zwei neuere Modalitäten der europäischen Politik - "flexible Kooperation" und "offene Kooperation". Sie könnten die Erreichung gemeinsamer Ziele trotz heterogener Bedingungen in den Mitgliedstaaten erleichtern. Leider wird deren Potential im Weißbuch nicht ausreichend gewürdigt

Globalization: The Limitations on State Capacity

Part of the Debate "Globalization