In the German Bundesrat, an arena of horizontal intergovernmental relations, sixteen L€ ander governments composed of approximately 170 governmental departments coordinate and negotiate their positions on federal motions. This article analyzes the coordination process and argues that the interests that the actors pursue, as well as the coordination strategies stemming from these interests, are less clear-cut than commonly assumed. Based on a novel network dataset collected by the author, evidence is found for sectoral, political party, and territorial coordination strategies.The main findings are first, that political party coordination in Germany is more frequent than territorial coordination but performs a structuring instead of a substantial function during the coordination process. Second, sectoral coordination mainly takes place at an early stage of the coordination process and is able to solve a bulk of coordination problems by drawing on expert knowledge.Processes of information exchange and coordination between central governments and sub-state governments are important processes in multilevel polities and determinants of successful multilevel policy-making. These occur not only vertically between the federal government and sub-state governments but also horizontally among sub-states. Poirier, Saunders, and Kincaid (2015, 4) argue that intergovernmental relations (IGR) are "the lifeblood of federalism in practice." This is especially true for cooperative federalism as it exists in the German Federal Republic with its system of joint decision-making (Behnke and Kropp 2016). One arena of intergovernmental relations in Germany is the Bundesrat.The German Bundesrat is the second chamber with territorial representation and an important institution in German politics. Its decisions often trigger or contribute to public discourse, for example, when in 2016 a decision regarding asylum policy and safe countries of origin led to intense public debate. In prior years, the Bundesrat initiated and led prominent attempts to forbid the extreme right party (NPD) or to exclude it from public party financing. Recently, it took a
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.
The Conferences of the Ministers of the German 'Länder' and the Federal Level-Cooperative Federalism in the shadow of 'Politikverfl echtung' Abstract: The Conferences of the Ministers of the German 'Länder' (LMKen) are classifi ed as horizontal coordination bodies in cooperative federalism, although the federal level is known to be involved in their negotiations. Our paper investigates conditions and extent of federal in volvement in order to come to a more precise understanding of the conferences' role in German federalism. An analysis of resolutions of the LMK proceedings shows that federal involvement is far higher than theoretically expected. The LMKen serve not primarily as a shield against federal interference, but rather to coordinate and infl uence federal decision-making. The combination of obligatory negotiations (Politikverfl echtung) and voluntary coordination (co-operative federalism) promotes fl exible yet committing decisions thus avoiding decision deadlocks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.