IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mpifgw/062.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nicht genutzte Chancen der Föderalismusreform

Author

Listed:
  • Scharpf, Fritz W.

Abstract

The reform of German federalism was meant to overcome the mutually imposed constraints on autonomous political action at the federal and Land levels. The proposals that are now to be discussed in parliament will provide some improvement, but are far from adequate in light of the original goals or the practical needs for reform. The reason was a simplistic approach to reform which, if it had been realized, would have violated the normative requirements of interregional equality. Options which could have increased autonomy without violating egalitarian standards were ignored in the process.

Suggested Citation

  • Scharpf, Fritz W., 2006. "Nicht genutzte Chancen der Föderalismusreform," MPIfG Working Paper 06/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgw:062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44268/1/550398287.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2005. "No exit from the joint decision trap? Can German federalism reform itself?," MPIfG Working Paper 05/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Fritz Scharpf, 2005. "No Exit from the Joint Decision Trap? Can German Federalism Reform Itself?," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 24, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    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. Fritz W. Scharpf, 2006. "The Joint-Decision Trap Revisited," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44, pages 845-864, November.
    2. Friedrich Heinemann & Eckhard Janeba & Marc-Daniel Moessinger & Christoph Schröder, 2015. "Who Likes to Fend for Oneself? Revenue Autonomy Preferences of Subnational Politicians in Germany," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 45(4), pages 653-685.
    3. Markus Tepe & Pieter Vanhuysse, 2009. "Educational business cycles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 61-82, April.
    4. Monstadt, Jochen & Scheiner, Stefan, 2014. "Allocating greenhouse gas emissions in the German federal system: Regional interests and federal climate governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 383-394.

    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:mpifgw:062. 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/mpigfde.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.