IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v138y2022ics1389934122000296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political parties as allies for the forestry sector: A case study from Germany

Author

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

Abstract

This paper aims at shedding light on partisan differences in forest policy by analysing whether governing parties' policy outputs are strongly orientated towards the demands of the nature conservation or the forestry sector. The data base encompasses four forest-related issues, relevant from 2001 to 2018 in the 16 German Bundesländer, so that more than 50 cabinets were able to be considered for analysis. The application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis allowed testing for several variables that were expected to have an impact on or even dominate partisan effects in certain configurations. The findings show that political parties do matter in forest policy. While the Green Party's policy outputs are clearly orientated towards nature conservation demands, the Christian Democratic Union/ Christian Social Union is a suitable ally for the forestry sector. The Social Democrats are between these two extremes, but closer to nature conservation in highly populated Bundesländer. Factors like forest cover or share of private forests were revealed not to be as important as political parties. We conclude that research in forest policy missed an important political factor of forest policy by neglecting the influence of political parties as a research subject.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:138:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000296
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934122000296
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102717?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. Ficko, Andrej & Lidestav, Gun & Ní Dhubháin, Áine & Karppinen, Heimo & Zivojinovic, Ivana & Westin, Kerstin, 2019. "European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 21-31.
    3. Weiss, Gerhard & Lawrence, Anna & Hujala, Teppo & Lidestav, Gun & Nichiforel, Liviu & Nybakk, Erlend & Quiroga, Sonia & Sarvašová, Zuzana & Suarez, Cristina & Živojinović, Ivana, 2019. "Forest ownership changes in Europe: State of knowledge and conceptual foundations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 9-20.
    4. Fritz W. Scharpf, 1994. "Community and Autonomy Multilevel Policy-Making in the European Union," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 1, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Sanchez Badini, Olivia & Hajjar, Reem & Kozak, Robert, 2018. "Critical success factors for small and medium forest enterprises: A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 35-45.
    8. Lanny W. Martin & Georg Vanberg, 2004. "Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 13-27, January.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Tosun, Jale, 2011. "Political parties and marine pollution policy: Exploring the case of Germany," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 536-541, July.
    12. Arts, Bas & de Koning, Jessica, 2017. "Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 315-325.
    13. Laver, Michael & Shepsle, Kenneth A., 1990. "Coalitions and Cabinet Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 873-890, September.
    14. Treib, Oliver, . "Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs," Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG), Institute for European integration research (EIF).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deegen, Peter & Halbritter, Andreas, 2024. "The influence of the competition amongst pressure groups to provide ecosystem services on the optimal rotation length of forest stands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    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 & 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).
    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. 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.
    5. Josef Brechler & Adam Geršl, 2014. "Political legislation cycle in the Czech Republic," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 137-153, June.
    6. Enriqueta Aragones, 1997. "Negativity Effect and the Emergence of Ideologies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(2), pages 189-210, April.
    7. Juan Carlos Berganza, 1998. "Relationships Between Politicians and Voters Through Elections: A Review Essay," Working Papers wp1998_9809, CEMFI.
    8. 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.
    9. Dilla, Diana, 2017. "Staatsverschuldung und Verschuldungsmentalität [Public Debt and Debt Mentality]," MPRA Paper 79432, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. William D. Nordhaus, 1989. "Alternative Approaches to the Political Business Cycle," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 20(2), pages 1-68.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Kolios Bill, 2019. "Political Business Cycles in Australia Elections and Party Ideology," Journal of Time Series Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-9, July.
    15. Aleksandra Praščević, 2017. "Political Economy Of Misusing Income Distribution In The Electoral Process – Biased Pluralism Approach," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 62(214), pages 7-44, June - Se.
    16. Belke, Ansgar & Potrafke, Niklas, 2012. "Does government ideology matter in monetary policy? A panel data analysis for OECD countries," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 1126-1139.
    17. Quiroga, Sonia & Suárez, Cristina & Hernanz, Virginia & Aguiño, José Evelio & Fernández-Manjarrés, Juan F., 2024. "Analysing post-conflict policies to enhance socio-ecological restoration among black communities in Southern Colombia: Cacao cropping as a win–win strategy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    18. Ľuboš Pástor & Pietro Veronesi, 2020. "Political Cycles and Stock Returns," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(11), pages 4011-4045.
    19. Navid Sabet, 2023. "Turning out for redistribution: the effect of voter turnout on top marginal tax rates," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 194(3), pages 347-367, March.
    20. Lucia Rossel Flores & Martijn Huysmans & Joras Ferwerda, 2024. "The political business cycle of tax reforms," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 200(1), pages 65-88, 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:138:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000296. 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.