320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (79) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (57)
- Postprint (6)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Review (3)
- Other (2)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (79)
Keywords
- governance (3)
- international organizations (3)
- Deutschland (2)
- Germany (2)
- Governance (2)
- Security Council (2)
- electoral systems (2)
- food security governance (2)
- inter-organizational order (2)
- inter-organizational relations (2)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (21)
- WeltTrends e.V. Potsdam (20)
- Sozialwissenschaften (17)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (11)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (3)
- Philosophische Fakultät (2)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (1)
- Forschungsbereich „Politik, Verwaltung und Management“ (1)
- Historisches Institut (1)
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (1)
When I took up the task of writing a review of the Routledge handbook of international local government, it occurred to me, as a member of the generation of the 1950s, that I had not even considered whether such compendiums were even necessary in times of easy internet searching. This review will look at whether that is indeed the case.
Social-science handbooks naturally are very broad. This also applies to the particular handbook under review. It comprises six content-thematic parts with 33 chapters by 73 authors from 21 countries, with the UK and USA dominant. The focal points, discussed in more detail below, are local elections and local governance, local governments in different jurisdictions, the challenges of local government services, citizen engagement in local affairs, and local authorities in multi-level finance systems that shape how municipal governments ‘get and spend’ public money. These are exactly the topics actually discussed in the international community of political scientists.
As a preliminary, the editors work out the theoretical-methodological foundations of the topic. They define ‘the local’ as ‘geographically defined sub-national state administrative or political divisions’ (p. 3). As next steps, they analyse the difference between government and governance, and investigate whether local government is globally important and relevant. Fortunately, they conclude that this is indeed the case.
Part I of the handbook illustrates ‘substantive variations’ in the local electoral systems and ‘notable divergences in the values and assumptions of local governance among democratic countries’ (p. 23). That topic is indeed central to local authorities’ legitimacy in democratic political systems. The focus of this part of the handbook is on current research and debates around local electoral systems, the challenges of local political leadership and the councillor’s role in modern local policy. Current trends at the local level are analysed from the actors’ perspectives or from an economic point of view by comparing institutionalised differences in city managers, mayors and council members across different jurisdictions. Sections that investigate traditional leadership and local government in Pacific Island countries are of particular interest to most Western readers, because in Europe and North America we know too little about such issues in that part of the world.
Part II of the handbook presents current development processes and challenges in various local government systems. The chapters are territorially oriented around nation states or sub-national regions. This part of the handbook deal with local government in the Pacific Islands, Latin America, and New Zealand and in the Caribbean. However, the rationale behind country selection is not always clear; important countries like China, India and Nigeria, just to name a few, are absent. Unfortunately, there is no summary article highlighting similarities and differences, as well as the challenges in local government, relating to the countries studied in the book.
The development of local services is the focus of Part III of the handbook, however, the definition of local services remains highly controversial and their scope varies widely between the countries. From the 1980s onwards, there was a long-term trend towards the marketisation and economisation of local politics, but since the turn of the millennium, there has been a counter-trend of the return of municipalities and third sector in the fields of local public services (Wollmann 2018). The book analyses the US and Georgia as case studies for development trends, finding that local government entrepreneurship remains an important factor in promoting economic development and strengthening capacities.
I was pleased to see that Part IV, the next and most extensive part of the handbook, deals with citizen engagement, because the future of local self-government across the world depends not only on top down activities by local governing elites, but above all on the commitment of the inhabitants of cities and municipalities. Practices and challenges of citizen participation in local government are analysed in inspiring case studies of mid-sized cities in Russia and the United States. The contribution on urban governance of austerity in Europe is also of particular interest. The 2008 global financial crash and the subsequent severe budgetary pressure on municipalities in many countries was a key event in the history and development of local self-government, confronting municipalities with ‘the harsh realities of political economy’ (p. 293). Several articles analyse the causes of the declining confidence of the citizens in local authorities in some countries. In contrast, the open budget tool in Brazil is as a positive example of collaborative stakeholder engagement.
Part V deals with multi-level governance. With the exception of Australia, it is all about Europe, especially the role of municipalities in the EU’s multilevel system. The authors conclude that ‘local authorities are essential for executing EU legislation, and this turn allows them to shape EU policies’ (p. 401). This part of the handbook includes the issue of local territorial reforms, which are central to local autonomy, combined with analyses of redesigning regional government and local-level Europeanisation. Subsequently, by comparing the local government systems of Southern Europe (France, Italy, Portugal and Spain), the authors underline convincingly the role of traditions, identity, legal frameworks and institutions in local government.
Part VI of the book deals with the financial dimension of local self-government under the heading ‘Getting and spending’. This is indeed the ‘key source of dispute between local and central government’ (p. 467) and the crucial factor shaping true local autonomy. Meritoriously, this part also contains a chapter on the fight against corruption and unethical behaviour by public servants. Based on research linking corruption to transparency and accountability, two case studies describe how Tbilisi (Georgia) and Lviv (Ukraine) try to reduce corruption in government budgeting and procurement. Enhancing Value-For-Money audit in local government highlights another important side of local finance. An interesting comparison reveals significant differences in local government revenues in European Union member states between 2000 and 2014.
Of course, even in a 530-page book, some important aspects remain underexposed. Above all, I would have liked more attention on some of the enormous future challenges facing democratic systems and with them local governments all over the world, such as digitisation (e.g. in smart cities), the integration of migrants or climate change. The international networking of municipalities should also be given greater prominence.
To sum it up, The Routledge Handbook on International Local Government is indeed ‘ambitiously titled’ as the editors underline. Yet, despite my critical objections about its focus on current issues rather than future challenges, they largely fulfil this promise and their general approach has worked well. Across continents and political-administrative cultures, illustrated with many new research findings, they have created an outstanding publication focusing on the challenges and policy of local self-governmental authorities and other local stakeholders. There is a good chance that this handbook will belong in future to the social science standard works on local issues, and be included in academic political science teaching. May the publisher’s wish come true; that this book stimulates its readers to develop further research ideas.
Finally, I come back to my initial question. ‘Old fashioned’ printed handbooks like these continue to make sense, even in modern digital times.
Global food security governance is fraught with fragmentation, overlap and complexity. While calls for coordination and coherence abound, establishing an inter-organizational order at this level seems to remain difficult. While the emphasis in the literature has so far been on the global level, we know less about dynamics of inter-organizational relations in food security governance at the country level, and empirical studies are lacking. It is this research gap the article seeks to address by posing the following research question: In how far does inter-organizational order develop in the organizational field of food security governance at the country level? Theoretically and conceptually, the article draws on sociological institutionalism, and on work on inter-organizational relations. Empirically, the article conducts an exploratory case study of the organizational field of food security governance in Côte d’Ivoire, building on a qualitative content analysis of organizational documents covering a period from 2003 to 2016 and semi-structured interviews with staff of international organizations from 2016. The article demonstrates that not all of the developments attributed to food security governance at the global level play out in the same way at the country level. Rather, in the case of Côte d’Ivoire there are signs for a certain degree of coherence between IOs in the field of food security governance and even for an – albeit limited – division of labour. However, this only holds for specific dimensions of the inter-organizational order and appears to be subject to continuous contestation and reinterpretation under the surface.
Die Fragmentierung europäischer Parteiensysteme und damit verbundene Schwierigkeiten bei der Koalitionsbildung haben zu einer Neuauflage altbekannter Debatten über unterschiedliche Wahlsysteme geführt. Einige Autoren sehen dabei bestimmte Wahlsysteme als optimalen Kompromiss zwischen den Prinzipien der Mehrheits- und der Verhältniswahl an. Wir argumentieren, dass diese Optimalitätsargumente eine konzeptionelle Schlagseite zugunsten „majoritärer“ Demokratiekonzeptionen haben. Eine anspruchsvolle „proportionale“ Demokratiekonzeption umfasst die Ziele mechanischer Proportionalität, multidimensionaler Repräsentation und wechselnder Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten. Diese Ziele lassen sich allerdings im parlamentarischen Regierungssystem nicht mit den Zielen der Mehrheitswahl vereinbaren. Der Grund ist, dass die relevanten Hürden des Wahlsystems gleichzeitig für die parlamentarische Repräsentation und die Teilnahme am Misstrauensvotum gelten. Erstere ist entscheidend für die proportionale, letztere für die majoritäre Konzeption der Demokratie. Sind wir bereit diese beiden Hürden zu entkoppeln – und somit das Regierungssystem zu verändern – ergibt sich eine Vielfalt neuer Reformoptionen. Wir illustrieren diese Punkte mit Daten für 29 demokratische Systeme im Zeitraum von 1995 bis 2015.
In a critical approach to Mommsen’s classical thesis, which states the dependence of Weber’s sociology on his political position, the article reconstructs the foundation of Weber’s ‘The Profession and Vocation of Politics’ on his sociological analyses of the political domain in the manuscripts for the posthumous publication of Economy and Society. The first two pages of his 1919 lecture particularly show that Weber can fall back on the definitions of State and politics that he had already developed for his political sociology. Yet, to appreciate the full extent of this theoretical contribution, it is necessary to present Weber’s entire ideal-typical analysis of the political. The article then shows that Weber provides an unlabelled definition of ‘modern politics’ that negates ante litteram Carl Schmitt’s foundation of politics on the idea of enmity. In this context, Weber’s sound plea for parliamentarism and against the fascination of civil war comes to the fore that he wanted to deliver to his audience of young revolutionaries in January 1919.
From the international perspective, the peace process in Liberia has generally been described as a successful model for international peacebuilding interventions. But how do Liberians perceive the peace process in their country? The aim of this paper is to complement an institutionalist approach looking at the security and justice mechanism in Liberia with some insights into local perceptions in order to answer the following question: how do Liberians perceive the peace process in their country and which institutions have been supportive for the establishment of sustaining peace? After briefly introducing the background of the Liberian conflict and the data collection, I present first results, analyzing the mechanism linking two peacebuilding institutions (peacekeeping and transitional justice) with the establishment of sustaining peace in Liberia.
Based upon the current debate on international practices with its focus on taken-for-granted everyday practices, we examine how Security Council practices may affect member state action and collective decisions on intrastate conflicts. We outline a concept that integrates the structuring effect of practices and their emergence from interaction among reflective actors. It promises to overcome the unresolved tension between understanding practices as a social regularity and as a fluid entity. We analyse the constitutive mechanisms of two Council practices that affect collective decisions on intrastate conflicts and elucidate how even reflective Council members become enmeshed with the constraining implications of evolving practices and their normative implications. (1) Previous Council decisions create precedent pressure and give rise to a virtually uncontested permissive Council practice that defines the purview for intervention into such conflicts. (2) A ratcheting practice forces opponents to choose between accepting steadily reinforced Council action, as occurred regarding Sudan/Darfur, and outright blockade, as in the case of Syria. We conclude that practices constitute a source of influence that is not captured by the traditional perspectives on Council activities as the consequence of geopolitical interests or of externally evolving international norms like the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P).
Little is known about how far-reaching decisions in UN Security Council sanctions committees are made. Developing a novel committee governance concept and using examples drawn from sanctions imposed on Iraq, Al-Qaida, Congo, Sudan and Iran, this book shows that Council members tend to follow the will of the powerful, whereas sanctions committee members often decide according to the rules. This is surprising since both Council and committees are staffed by the same member states.
Offering a fascinating account of Security Council micro-politics and decision-making processes on sanctions, this rigorous comparative and theory-driven analysis treats the Council and its sanctions committees as distinguishable entities that may differ in decision practice despite having the same members. Drawing extensively on primary documents, diplomatic cables, well-informed press coverage, reports by close observers and extensive interviews with committee members, Council diplomats and sanctions experts, it contrasts with the conventional wisdom on decision-making within these bodies, which suggests that the powerful permanent members would not accept rule-based decisions against their interests.
This book will be of interest to policy practitioners and scholars working in the broad field of international organizations and international relations theory as well as those specializing in sanctions, international law, the Security Council and counter-terrorism.
The Eye of the Beholder?
(2019)
In light of the debate on the consequences of competitive contracting out of traditionally public services, this research compares two mechanisms used to allocate funds in development cooperation—direct awarding and competitive contracting out—aiming to identify their potential advantages and disadvantages.
The agency theory is applied within the framework of rational-choice institutionalism to study the institutional arrangements that surround two different money allocation mechanisms, identify the incentives they create for the behavior of individual actors in the field, and examine how these then transfer into measurable differences in managerial quality of development aid projects. In this work, project management quality is seen as an important determinant of the overall project success.
For data-gathering purposes, the German development agency, the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), is used due to its unique way of work. Whereas the majority of projects receive funds via direct-award mechanism, there is a commercial department, GIZ International Services (GIZ IS) that has to compete for project funds.
The data concerning project management practices on the GIZ and GIZ IS projects was gathered via a web-based, self-administered survey of project team leaders. Principal component analysis was applied to reduce the dimensionality of the independent variable to total of five components of project management. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis identified the differences between the separate components on these two project types. Enriched by qualitative data gathered via interviews, this thesis offers insights into everyday managerial practices in development cooperation and identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the two allocation mechanisms.
The thesis first reiterates the responsibility of donors and implementers for overall aid effectiveness. It shows that the mechanism of competitive contracting out leads to better oversight and control of implementers, fosters deeper cooperation between the implementers and beneficiaries, and has a potential to strengthen ownership of recipient countries. On the other hand, it shows that the evaluation quality does not tremendously benefit from the competitive allocation mechanism and that the quality of the component knowledge management and learning is better when direct-award mechanisms are used. This raises questions about the lacking possibilities of actors in the field to learn about past mistakes and incorporate the finings into the future interventions, which is one of the fundamental issues of aid effectiveness. Finally, the findings show immense deficiencies in regard to oversight and control of individual projects in German development cooperation.
Evolving order?
(2019)
Global food security governance is fraught with fragmentation, overlap and complexity. While calls for coordination and coherence abound, establishing an inter-organizational order at this level seems to remain difficult. While the emphasis in the literature has so far been on the global level, we know less about dynamics of inter-organizational relations in food security governance at the country level, and empirical studies are lacking. It is this research gap the article seeks to address by posing the following research question: In how far does inter-organizational order develop in the organizational field of food security governance at the country level? Theoretically and conceptually, the article draws on sociological institutionalism, and on work on inter-organizational relations. Empirically, the article conducts an exploratory case study of the organizational field of food security governance in Côte d’Ivoire, building on a qualitative content analysis of organizational documents covering a period from 2003 to 2016 and semi-structured interviews with staff of international organizations from 2016. The article demonstrates that not all of the developments attributed to food security governance at the global level play out in the same way at the country level. Rather, in the case of Côte d’Ivoire there are signs for a certain degree of coherence between IOs in the field of food security governance and even for an – albeit limited – division of labour. However, this only holds for specific dimensions of the inter-organizational order and appears to be subject to continuous contestation and reinterpretation under the surface.