IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbsse/fsii00301.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Institutionelle Arrangements und Formen der Handlungskoordination im Mehrebenensystem der USA

Author

Listed:
  • Kern, Kristine

Abstract

Das Verhältnis zwischen den Politikebenen im Mehrebenensystem der USA kann durch drei Typen charakterisiert werden: erstens die zentrale Regulierung, d.h. die hierarchische Koordination der Politikebenen. Zweitens die dezentrale Regulierung, die sowohl den regulativen Wettbewerb als auch die Entstehung horizontaler Verhandlungssysteme zwischen den Einzelstaaten umfasst. Beide Formen verlieren an Bedeutung, da sich stattdessen mehr und mehr ein dritter Typus, die Mehrebenenregulierung, durchsetzt. Dargestellt werden zwei Varianten dieser neuartigen institutionellen Arrangements, die den beiden anderen Typen der Regulierung überlegen sind: Zum einen wird der Wettbewerb zwischen den Politikebenen durch eine Kombination hierarchischer Elemente mit dem regulativen Wettbewerb zwischen den Einzelstaaten gefördert, z.B. durch die Festsetzung nationaler Mindeststandards. Zum anderen kann ein Wandel der intergouvernementalen Beziehungen beobachtet werden, der die Entstehung vertikaler Verhandlungssysteme zwischen dem Bund und den Einzelstaaten begünstigt. Die Entwicklung in den USA zeigt, dass bei der Kombination institutioneller Arrangements auf hierarchische Elemente kaum verzichtet werden kann. Außerdem kann man feststellen, dass dynamische Politikentwicklungen nicht nur aus dem regulativen Wettbewerb zwischen den Einzelstaaten, sondern auch aus dem Wettbewerb zwischen den Politikebenen resultieren können.

Suggested Citation

  • Kern, Kristine, 2000. "Institutionelle Arrangements und Formen der Handlungskoordination im Mehrebenensystem der USA," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Standard-setting and Environment FS II 00-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsse:fsii00301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/48981/1/311376371.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    2. Benz, Arthur, 1991. "Mehr-Ebenen-Verflechtung: Politische Prozesse in verbundenen Entscheidungsarenen," MPIfG Discussion Paper 91/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    3. Scharpf, Fritz W., 1993. "Positive und negative Koordination in Verhandlungssystemen," MPIfG Discussion Paper 93/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    4. Rose-Ackerman, Susan, 1981. "Does Federalism Matter? Political Choice in a Federal Republic," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(1), pages 152-165, February.
    5. Majone, Giandomenico, 1991. "Cross-National Sources of Regulatory Policymaking in Europe and the United States," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 79-106, January.
    6. Michael E. Kraft & Denise Scheberle, 0. "Environmental Federalism at Decade's End: New Approaches and Strategies," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 131-146.
    7. Scharpf, Fritz W., 1999. "Regieren in Europa: Effektiv und demokratisch?," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 0, number sbd-1999.
    8. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    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. Grande, Edgar, 2001. "The erosion of state capacity and the European innovation policy dilemma: A comparison of German and EU information technology policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 905-921, June.
    2. Weiss, Gerhard, 2000. "Evaluation of policy instruments for protective forest management in Austria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 243-255, December.
    3. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Maarten Hillebrandt, 2017. "Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 62-74.
    5. Broich, Tobias, 2017. "Do authoritarian regimes receive more Chinese development finance than democratic ones? Empirical evidence for Africa," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 180-207.
    6. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    7. Ogada, Maurice Juma, 2012. "Forest Management Decentralization in Kenya: Effects on Household Farm Forestry Decisions in Kakamega," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126319, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    9. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    11. Carina I. Hausladen & Regula Hänggli Fricker & Dirk Helbing & Renato Kunz & Junling Wang & Evangelos Pournaras, 2024. "How voting rules impact legitimacy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Sophie Jacquot & Cornelia Woll, 2003. "Usage of European Integration - Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01019642, HAL.
    13. Reibling, Nadine & Ariaans, Mareike & Wendt, Claus, 2019. "Worlds of Healthcare: A Healthcare System Typology of OECD Countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 611-620.
    14. Streeck, Wolfgang, 2009. "Institutions in history: Bringing capitalism back in," MPIfG Discussion Paper 09/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Weidner, Helmut, 2005. "Global equity versus public interest? The case of climate change policy in Germany," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Civil Society and Transnational Networks SP IV 2005-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    16. Bernhard Ebbinghaus, 2009. "Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform," Chapters, in: Lars Magnusson & Jan Ottosson (ed.), The Evolution of Path Dependence, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Maixe-Altes, J. Carles, 2009. "The diversity of organisational forms in banking: France, Italy and Spain 1900-2000," MPRA Paper 14838, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Baum, Fran & Ziersch, Anna & Freeman, Toby & Javanparast, Sara & Henderson, Julie & Mackean, Tamara, 2020. "Strife of Interests: Constraints on integrated and co-ordinated comprehensive PHC in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    19. Kaplan Yilmaz, 2017. "China’s OBOR as a Geo-Functional Institutionalist Project," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 7-23, June.
    20. Michael Grothe-Hammer & Héloïse Berkowitz, 2024. "Unpacking Social Order: Towards a Novel Framework that Goes Beyond Organizations, Institutions, and Networks Forthcoming in Critical Sociology," Post-Print hal-04426296, HAL.
    21. Simon Guy & John Henneberry, 2000. "Understanding Urban Development Processes: Integrating the Economic and the Social in Property Research," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(13), pages 2399-2416, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:wzbsse:fsii00301. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.html .

    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.