Suchergebnisse

Today few people deny the existence of regional substate diplomacy (Criekemans 2010). But there is still no common agreement on a region's right to do so and, above all, on their scope of action. This question goes against what used to be the dominant approach in international relations, the state-centric approach that leads to the logic of speaking with one voice. Increasingly, a multilevel-governance approach has contested this state-centric view and proposes an alternative logic of multiple actors speaking with their voice, nuancing strongly the seminal distinction between "sovereignty-bound" and "sovereignty-free" actors (Rosenau 1990). From the 1970s, the world has seen the growing presence of sovereignty-free actors in international relations. Among these actors, non-central or, better, substate, governments of federal states have developed intensive foreign relations. These governments are using a range of techniques: from shaping the federal government's foreign policy to establishing themselves directly in the international arena (Blatter et al. 2008). For minority nation governments this is particularly a challenge, as they have to act internally – where they have developed full-fledged legislative powers within a multinational federation – and externally – where international and national laws are often still reluctant to recognise their right of action (Lejeune 2003). Yet some minority nations have thrived in developing their own international relations. Bavaria, Catalonia, Flanders, Quebec, Scotland and Wallonia are often seen as successful international players even if they are not fully sovereignty bound (Michelmann 2009; Criekemans 2010). The international actions of these minority nations have been characterised under the umbrella of "identity paradiplomacy" (Paquin 2003); that is, a willingness to use international relations to foster a nation-building process within a multinational state. This observation was particularly prevalent for minority nations strongly in competition with a federal government about their nationbuilding process, albeit for different reasons, namely Flanders, Quebec and Scotland (Paquin 2004). The case of Wallonia seems to fits less well into the identity paradiplomacy framework, which therefore raises the question of alternative roads to international relations. This is the core question of this chapter: is identity paradiplomacy the only way to go for minority nations? Quebec and Wallonia are both well known for their active foreign relations.

Today few people deny the existence of regional substate diplomacy (Criekemans 2010). But there is still no common agreement on a region's right to do so and, above all, on their scope of action. This question goes against what used to be the dominant approach in international relations, the state-centric approach that leads to the logic of speaking with one voice. Increasingly, a multilevel-governance approach has contested this state-centric view and proposes an alternative logic of multiple actors speaking with their voice, nuancing strongly the seminal distinction between "sovereignty-bound" and "sovereignty-free" actors (Rosenau 1990). From the 1970s, the world has seen the growing presence of sovereignty-free actors in international relations. Among these actors, non-central or, better, substate, governments of federal states have developed intensive foreign relations. These governments are using a range of techniques: from shaping the federal government's foreign policy to establishing themselves directly in the international arena (Blatter et al. 2008). For minority nation governments this is particularly a challenge, as they have to act internally – where they have developed full-fledged legislative powers within a multinational federation – and externally – where international and national laws are often still reluctant to recognise their right of action (Lejeune 2003). Yet some minority nations have thrived in developing their own international relations. Bavaria, Catalonia, Flanders, Quebec, Scotland and Wallonia are often seen as successful international players even if they are not fully sovereignty bound (Michelmann 2009; Criekemans 2010). The international actions of these minority nations have been characterised under the umbrella of "identity paradiplomacy" (Paquin 2003); that is, a willingness to use international relations to foster a nation-building process within a multinational state. This observation was particularly prevalent for minority nations strongly in competition with a federal government about their nationbuilding process, albeit for different reasons, namely Flanders, Quebec and Scotland (Paquin 2004). The case of Wallonia seems to fits less well into the identity paradiplomacy framework, which therefore raises the question of alternative roads to international relations. This is the core question of this chapter: is identity paradiplomacy the only way to go for minority nations? Quebec and Wallonia are both well known for their active foreign relations.

What policy style(s) does local government display in Belgium? This seemingly straightforward question does not have an easy answer. After all, the country is renowned for its institutional complexity and thickness, two features that strongly impact upon local government's way of working. In the wake of the state reforms, the federal government granted the three Belgian regions (Walloon, Flemish and Brussels) key competencies over the cities and municipalities standing on their territory (Deschouwer and Reuchamps, 2013). In 2001, regions even became entitled over the basic local government legislation, regulating to a large extent local political and administrative institutions and practices. A new and influential layer of central government has thus been created: all regions have grasped their new powers to introduce policy tools and instruments on the local level, according to their own pace and policy orientation (Wayenberg et al., 2011). This federalization process added diversity between cities and municipalities that were already very heterogonous in size, financial status and political dynamics, to name but a few of their basic characteristics (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). As a result, local government in the three Belgian regions now operates under different regulatory frames. This chapter explores whether local government in Belgium displays a specific style of policy analysis. To this end, we use a two-level comparative analysis that allows us to shed light on local policy analysis regarding the specificity of the Belgium's regions. The first level is a comparison of the Flemish and the Walloon regions. The focus on them is not only a matter of size, as Flanders and Wallonia respectively count 308 (52%) and 262 (45%) of the 589 Belgian municipalities but also a matter of policy analysis. Indeed, they cover the country's two main administrative traditions, being located in the Dutch-speaking north and the French-speaking south. Both have also made use of their competency to legislate on local government's political and administrative institutions and practices, and have promulgated local government legislation to this end. That is not the case of the Brussels-Capital Region, which accounts for 19 municipalities (3%) still functioning according to the Belgian legislation of 1988 (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). The case of Brussels will therefore not be handled is this chapter nor will the peculiar case of the nine German-speaking municipalities that are attached both to the Walloon Region and the German-speaking Community (Bouhon et al., 2015). As such, we aim at finding out what policy-making tools and instruments are currently in use on the local level and what are those emerging, via a thorough documentary analysis of local government legislation in both regions. The second comparative level is a case study of two local governments with the aim of verifying the localization of the regional tools and instruments. Are they actually embedded in local government's practice, thus shaping local policy style? To this end, we consider one Flemish and one Walloon local government, respectively Deinze and Gembloux. These cities are quite similar on the main institutional features: both are medium-size, financially healthy and are governed since 2006 by the same parties. They are thus suitable to gather first insights into local government's style(s) of policy analysis and put forward the possible gap with the regional injunctions and the differences between the two regions. Before turning to the two-level comparative analysis, we start by clarifying the policy style concept that is central to our analysis.

What policy style(s) does local government display in Belgium? This seemingly straightforward question does not have an easy answer. After all, the country is renowned for its institutional complexity and thickness, two features that strongly impact upon local government's way of working. In the wake of the state reforms, the federal government granted the three Belgian regions (Walloon, Flemish and Brussels) key competencies over the cities and municipalities standing on their territory (Deschouwer and Reuchamps, 2013). In 2001, regions even became entitled over the basic local government legislation, regulating to a large extent local political and administrative institutions and practices. A new and influential layer of central government has thus been created: all regions have grasped their new powers to introduce policy tools and instruments on the local level, according to their own pace and policy orientation (Wayenberg et al., 2011). This federalization process added diversity between cities and municipalities that were already very heterogonous in size, financial status and political dynamics, to name but a few of their basic characteristics (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). As a result, local government in the three Belgian regions now operates under different regulatory frames. This chapter explores whether local government in Belgium displays a specific style of policy analysis. To this end, we use a two-level comparative analysis that allows us to shed light on local policy analysis regarding the specificity of the Belgium's regions. The first level is a comparison of the Flemish and the Walloon regions. The focus on them is not only a matter of size, as Flanders and Wallonia respectively count 308 (52%) and 262 (45%) of the 589 Belgian municipalities but also a matter of policy analysis. Indeed, they cover the country's two main administrative traditions, being located in the Dutch-speaking north and the French-speaking south. Both have also made use of their competency to legislate on local government's political and administrative institutions and practices, and have promulgated local government legislation to this end. That is not the case of the Brussels-Capital Region, which accounts for 19 municipalities (3%) still functioning according to the Belgian legislation of 1988 (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). The case of Brussels will therefore not be handled is this chapter nor will the peculiar case of the nine German-speaking municipalities that are attached both to the Walloon Region and the German-speaking Community (Bouhon et al., 2015). As such, we aim at finding out what policy-making tools and instruments are currently in use on the local level and what are those emerging, via a thorough documentary analysis of local government legislation in both regions. The second comparative level is a case study of two local governments with the aim of verifying the localization of the regional tools and instruments. Are they actually embedded in local government's practice, thus shaping local policy style? To this end, we consider one Flemish and one Walloon local government, respectively Deinze and Gembloux. These cities are quite similar on the main institutional features: both are medium-size, financially healthy and are governed since 2006 by the same parties. They are thus suitable to gather first insights into local government's style(s) of policy analysis and put forward the possible gap with the regional injunctions and the differences between the two regions. Before turning to the two-level comparative analysis, we start by clarifying the policy style concept that is central to our analysis.

Le chapitre s'attachera dans un premier temps à montrer que le nom de chacune des listes présentes au scrutin communal de 2012 en Wallonie est l'aboutissement d'une histoire propre aux candidats et à l'espace politique dans lequel ils prétendent s'enraciner. Ensuite, nous montrerons qu'il est possible de dresser, au-delà` d'un inventaire anecdotique, un tableau synthétique du choix des listes aux élections communales de 2012. Pour ce faire nous construirons une typologie du nom des listes afin de mettre en évidence certaines grandes tendances dans le choix des noms. Enfin, par une approche quantitative, nous montrerons que le choix du nom des listes est de´ pendant de toute une se´ rie de facteurs qui nous aideront à expliquer ce processus politique.

Le chapitre s'attachera dans un premier temps à montrer que le nom de chacune des listes présentes au scrutin communal de 2012 en Wallonie est l'aboutissement d'une histoire propre aux candidats et à l'espace politique dans lequel ils prétendent s'enraciner. Ensuite, nous montrerons qu'il est possible de dresser, au-delà` d'un inventaire anecdotique, un tableau synthétique du choix des listes aux élections communales de 2012. Pour ce faire nous construirons une typologie du nom des listes afin de mettre en évidence certaines grandes tendances dans le choix des noms. Enfin, par une approche quantitative, nous montrerons que le choix du nom des listes est de´ pendant de toute une se´ rie de facteurs qui nous aideront à expliquer ce processus politique.

This unique book presents the first systematic overview of policy analysis activities in Belgium. Contributors from both sides of the Dutch-French language border (from research institutes in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia) use original empirical data, through surveys and interviews with key players both within and outside government, to provide a comprehensive study of policy analysis in a multi-level polity. By the very nature of the Belgian experience, the volume is comparative, drawing conclusions on divergence and convergence of policy analysis, making it an important resource for both national and international scholars