Subnational Governance Approaches on the Rise—Reviewing a Decade of Eastern European Regionalization Research

Pitschel, Diana; Bauer, Michael W.

doi:10.1080/13597560902957450

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This preference for top-down research designs is prevalent not only in Europeanisation research in general but also in relation to regionalisation in CEECs in particular (Pitschel and Bauer, 2009). While research on CEECs appears to be shifting towards bottom-up approaches as a result of the former's membership of the EU (Pitschel and Bauer, 2009), Europeanisation research on other candidate countries ought not to wait for full membership, which may not be in the foreseeable future as in Turkey's case, to make this shift.…”

Section: The Role Of the Eumentioning

confidence: 95%

Institutional change and Europeanisation: explaining regional policy reform in Turkey

Ertugal¹

2011

policy polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article engages in a search for 'causes of effects' in order to disentangle the relative roles played by the European Union (EU) and domestic factors in Europeanisation processes in a candidate country where the credibility of EU conditionality is low. Unlike former candidate countries where the EU impact has been limited but significant, the article finds a differentiated pattern of Europeanisation in Turkey where the EU plays an indirect role and domestic party politics a causal role in institutional change in regional policy. In this pattern, the EU is a passive provider of institutional templates, which domestic actors in power chose to emulate.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of the Eumentioning

confidence: 95%

Institutional change and Europeanisation: explaining regional policy reform in Turkey

Ertugal¹

2011

policy polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As I mentioned in Section 2.1, structural legacies are also the common point of departure for the work on regionalism that concentrates on pre-conditions and outcomes of subnational reforms (Marcou 2002;Wolczuk 2002a;Pitschel and Bauer 2009). A legacies approach suggests that changes to the territorial structure of states are dependent on preexisting institutional structures and legacies (Börzel 2002;Brusis 2002;Ekiert and Hanson 2003;Pitschel and Bauer 2009 ).…”

Section: The Role Of Institutional Legacies From Yugoslav Decentralizmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A legacies approach suggests that changes to the territorial structure of states are dependent on preexisting institutional structures and legacies (Börzel 2002;Brusis 2002;Ekiert and Hanson 2003;Pitschel and Bauer 2009 ). Special reference has often been made to historical institutionalism that tries to explain this path dependence as a locking-in device that aggravates an alteration of given structures and eventually perpetuates them (Hall and Taylor 1996;Thelen 1999;Pierson 2000).…”

Section: The Role Of Institutional Legacies From Yugoslav Decentralizmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Post-socialist transition societies are very exciting cases in this regard because centralization and authoritarian rule have suppressed peripheral interests for almost five decades, and democratic institutions are now giving them more voice (Keating 2003b;Pitschel and Bauer 2009). Empirically, we observe on average a much more pronounced tendency to decentralize in transition countries than in advanced and established democracies in the western hemisphere (Marks et al 2008: 177).…”

Section: Figures and Tablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Political Elites and Decentralization Reforms in the Post-Socialist Balkans

Kleibrink¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

South-East Europe presents a compelling agenda: a region that has challenged European identities, values and interests like no other at formative periods of modern history, and is now undergoing a set of complex transitions. It is a region made up of new and old European Union member states, as well as aspiring ones; early 'democratising' states and new post-communist regimes; states undergoing liberalizing economic reforms, partially inspired by external forces, whilst coping with their own embedded nationalisms; and states obliged to respond to new and recurring issues of security, identity, well-being, social integration, faith and secularization.This series examines issues of inheritance and adaptation. The disciplinary reach incorporates politics and international relations, modern history, economics and political economy and sociology. It links the study of South-East Europe across a number of social sciences to European issues of democratization and economic reform in the post-transition age. It addresses ideas as well as institutions, policies as well as processes. It will include studies of the domestic and foreign policies of single states, relations between states and peoples in the region, and between the region and beyond. The EU is an obvious reference point for current research on South-East Europe, but this series also highlights the importance of South-East Europe in its eastern context: the Caucuses, the Black Sea and the Middle East.

show abstract

“…Over the past 15 years, such research has gained new importance: A first new 'sub-strand' is dedicated to studying decentralization. In the course of the Eastern enlargement of the EU, it dealt with decentralization dynamics in Central and Eastern European states (Sturm and Dieringer 2005;Pitschel and Bauer 2009) and is now moving towards studying decentralization in developing countries (Demmelhuber and Sturm 2016;Harbers 2010); it has increasingly come to include also comparisons of secession trends in Europe (Sturm 2014;Petersohn et al 2015;) and in developing states (Heinemann-Grüder 2011;Keil 2016). A second 'sub-strand' has developed a comparative focus on the attributes associated with democracy, such as parties, elections and participation (Detterbeck and Hepburn 2010;Oberhofer 2011;Fraenkel-Haeberle et al 2015), and on identity-issues (Beyme 2007;Sturm et al 2010).…”

Section: Comparative Federalism Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a ‘German school’ of comparative politics? An institutional perspective

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Looking at scientific research in terms of 'schools' marks an established way of evaluating larger research areas. In this paper, we deliberately use a soft concept of 'school', designed to capture possible peculiarities of the discipline of Comparative Politics in Germany, and its impact at the international level of political research. The focus of our inquiry is on three major sub-areas of comparative political studies-comparative executive politics, comparative legislative research, and comparative federalism research-which can be meaningfully subsumed under the label of institution-centred comparative political research. Moreover, we focus basically on the developments of the past decade. We find that the size of the German, or German-language, community of comparative politics has long worked to keep the pressure for German or Germany-based scholars to publish their research in English low, though the language of publication alone cannot be considered a valid indicator of either scientific excellence or parochialism. Data collected for the past decade, measuring the share of contributions by German or Germany-based scholars in the internationally leading specialist journals of the sub-areas examined, suggest that the discipline has 'opened up' and 'reached out' more recently. That said, for the time being, the German comparative politics community in the three sub-areas studied continues to be considerably stronger at the receiving end, in terms of paying reasonable attention to the theoretical and empirical developments at the international level, than at actively shaping the international debate. As in other areas, exceptions prove the rule.

show abstract

Subnational Governance Approaches on the Rise—Reviewing a Decade of Eastern European Regionalization Research

Cited by 28 publications

References 75 publications

Institutional change and Europeanisation: explaining regional policy reform in Turkey

Institutional change and Europeanisation: explaining regional policy reform in Turkey

Political Elites and Decentralization Reforms in the Post-Socialist Balkans

Is there a ‘German school’ of comparative politics? An institutional perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About