IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v127y2021ics1389934121000599.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partisan theory in forest nature conservation policy: Empirical evidence based on four German conflict issues

Author

Listed:
  • Göhrs, Max
  • Hubo, Christiane
  • Krott, Max

Abstract

During the last decades, political parties have still appeared as an almost unknown factor within the substantial expansion of topics in forest policy research. While discriminating between green, state/protection and market/use orientated parties, this study aims to reveal the influence of different governing parties on forest nature conservation policy in Germany, contributing to partisan theory. The analysis covers 247 politically relevant cases between 1998 and 2018 in 15 German Bundesländer (regional level). The analysis model distinguishes between positive, negative and non-decisions, linking results of governing parties' activities in the agenda-setting and the policy-formulation phases of the policy process. It examines the manifestos of the governing parties and the results of the government's actions concerning four of the main conflict issues. Both the demands in manifestos and the policy outputs are evaluated using the interests of the forest and the nature conservation policy sector as a benchmark. As a result, two-thirds of the non-decisions arrived at during issue-relevant periods led to a status quo, as well as 6% of demands blocked, and 27% were positive decisions that led to a renewed policy output. Among these, only few corresponded to the interests of nature conservation. In proportion to their government participation, the Greens have contributed most frequently to policy outputs, and they have contributed the most to nature-conservation oriented outputs. The small liberal party, FDP, is the corresponding counterpart and fosters forest interests the most, but it has governed only seldom. The two major parties are more balanced. The SPD, as a state-orientated party, clearly leans towards nature conservation, whereas the CDU/CSU presents a market-orientated party, and prefers forest interests. In conclusion, political parties make a significant difference in German forest nature conservation policy. The details on the parties contribute empirical insight into partisan theory in environmental policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Göhrs, Max & Hubo, Christiane & Krott, Max, 2021. "Partisan theory in forest nature conservation policy: Empirical evidence based on four German conflict issues," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:127:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121000599
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934121000599
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102453?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hibbs, Douglas A., 1977. "Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(4), pages 1467-1487, December.
    2. James Adams & Michael Clark & Lawrence Ezrow & Garrett Glasgow, 2006. "Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties' Policy Shifts, 1976–1998," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 513-529, July.
    3. Hicks, Alexander M. & Swank, Duane H., 1992. "Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending in Industrialized Democracies, 1960–82," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(3), pages 658-674, September.
    4. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    5. Hubo, Christiane & Krott, Max, 2013. "Conflict camouflaging in public administration — A case study in nature conservation policy in Lower Saxony," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-70.
    6. Christian B. Jensen & Jae‐Jae Spoon, 2011. "Testing the ‘Party Matters’ Thesis: Explaining Progress towards Kyoto Protocol Targets," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 59(1), pages 99-115, March.
    7. Laver, Michael & Shepsle, Kenneth A., 1990. "Coalitions and Cabinet Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 873-890, September.
    8. Fink, Simon & Bartels, Jan-Eric & Hagendorf, Winona & Klinger, Niklas, 2019. "Determinants of subnational party positions on electricity grid expansion in Germany: Economic over political interests," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 145-157.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Göhrs, Max & Krott, Max & Hubo, Christiane, 2022. "Political parties as allies for the forestry sector: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. Potrafke, Niklas, 2017. "Partisan politics: The empirical evidence from OECD panel studies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 712-750.
    3. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    4. Adam, Antonis & Ftergioti, Stamatia, 2019. "Neighbors and friends: How do European political parties respond to globalization?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 369-384.
    5. Hibbs, Douglas A, Jr, 2000. "Bread and Peace Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 104(1-2), pages 149-180, July.
    6. Enriqueta Aragones, 1997. "Negativity Effect and the Emergence of Ideologies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(2), pages 189-210, April.
    7. Antonio Merlo, 2005. "Whither Political Economy? Theories, Facts and Issues," PIER Working Paper Archive 05-033, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Dec 2005.
    8. Valentino Larcinese, 2007. "Voting over Redistribution and the Size of the Welfare State: The Role of Turnout," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(3), pages 568-585, October.
    9. César Martinelli & John Duggan, 2014. "The Political Economy of Dynamic Elections: A Survey and Some New Results," Working Papers 1403, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
    10. Vergne, Clémence, 2009. "Democracy, elections and allocation of public expenditures in developing countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 63-77, March.
    11. Christian Bjørnskov & Niklas Potrafke, 2012. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom Across Canadian Provinces," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 143-166.
    12. Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Steiner, Viktor, 2006. "Intergenerational Conflict, Partisan Politics, and Public Higher Education Spending: Evidence from the German States," IZA Discussion Papers 2417, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Vadlamannati, Krishna Chaitanya & Kelly, Grace, 2017. "Welfare Chauvinism? Refugee Flows and Electoral Support for Populist-right Parties in Industrial Democracies," MPRA Paper 81816, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Selim Jürgen Ergun, 2015. "Centrist’S Curse? An Electoral Competition Model With Credibility Constraints," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Marco Bonomo & Cristina Terra, 2008. "Political Business Cycles through Lobbying," THEMA Working Papers 2008-18, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    16. Marco Bonomo & Cristina Terra, 2010. "Electoral Cycles Through Lobbying," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 446-470, November.
    17. William Mitchell, 1988. "Virginia, Rochester, and Bloomington: Twenty-five years of public choice and political science," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 101-119, February.
    18. Gerald Carlino & Thorsten Drautzburg & Robert Inman & Nicholas Zarra, 2023. "Partisanship and Fiscal Policy in Economic Unions: Evidence from US States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(3), pages 701-737, March.
    19. Aurélie Cassette & Etienne Farvaque & Jérôme Héricourt, 2013. "Two-round elections, one-round determinants? Evidence from the French municipal elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 563-591, September.
    20. Niklas Potrafke, 2009. "Did globalization restrict partisan politics? An empirical evaluation of social expenditures in a panel of OECD countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 105-124, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:127:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121000599. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.