Suchergebnisse

Der Begriff "multilevel governance" bzw. Steuerung und Koordinierung im Mehrebenensystem wird in der politikwissenschaftlichen Literatur erst seit einiger Zeit häufiger gebraucht. Mehrebenensysteme der Politik entstehen, wenn zwar die Zuständigkeiten nach Ebenen aufgeteilt, jedoch die Aufgaben interdependent sind, wenn also Entscheidungen zwischen Ebenen koordiniert werden müssen. Die in der Föderalismusdiskussion vielfach negativ bewertete "Politikverflechtung" stellt somit ein wesentliches Merkmal von "multilevel governance" dar. Gegenstand der vorliegenden politikwissenschaftlichen Analyse sind die Ursachen, die Formen und die Folgen der Verflechtung. Ein zentrales Merkmal der Mehrebenenpolitik ergibt sich aus der Tatsache, dass mit Ebenen eine bestimmte Organisation von Politik, sei es einer Gebietskörperschaft oder einer internationalen Form der Staatenzusammenarbeit oder der Staatenverbindung, umschrieben wird. Es handelt sich damit um komplexe Konfiguration, die aus der Verbindung von Strukturen und Prozessen innerhalb von Ebenen (intragouvernemental) und zwischen Ebenen (intergouvernemental) gebildet werden. Die konkrete Form eines Mehrebenensystems resultiert aus der Kombination von institutionellen "Regelsystemen" der jeweiligen Ebenen und den Beziehungen zwischen ihnen. Diese Regelsysteme erzeugen bestimmte Funktionslogiken der Politik, die mehr oder weniger miteinander kompatibel sind. (ICA2)

The article analyzes how business interests responded to European integration. It draws on survey data of eight hundred German, French, British, & European Union (EU) trade associations as well as thirty-four large firms. The argument is that the multilevel governance approach to European integration captures the realities of EU interest intermediation better than neofunctionalism & intergovernmentalism. The article suggests that the strategies of interest organizations depend mainly on their location in the EU multilevel system & on their governance capacities. I distinguish two kinds of governance capacities: negotiation capacities & organizational resources. The analysis proceeds in the following steps: After outlining the three theories of European integration & presenting their implications for interest groups, a brief overview of the relative importance for interest organizations of EU & national institutions over time is provided. Then, cluster analysis techniques serve to identify types of interest groups according to their lobbying strategies in the multilevel system: niche organizations, occasional players, traditionalists, EU players, & multilevel players are distinguished. The composition of these clusters & the characteristics of their members support the multilevel governance approach & indicate that multilevel players have greater governance capacities than organizations in the other clusters. 5 Tables, 5 Figures, 1 Appendix, 61 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article analyzes how business interests responded to European integration. It draws on survey data of eight hundred German, French, British, and European Union (EU) trade associations as well as thirty‐four large firms. The argument is that the multilevel governance approach to European integration captures the realities of EU interest intermediation better than neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism. The article suggests that the strategies of interest organizations depend mainly on their location in the EU multilevel system and on their governance capacities. I distinguish two kinds of governance capacities: negotiation capacities and organizational resources. The analysis proceeds in the following steps: After outlining the three theories of European integration and presenting their implications for interest groups, a brief overview of the relative importance for interest organizations of EU and national institutions over time is provided. Then, cluster analysis techniques serve to identify types of interest groups according to their lobbying strategies in the multilevel system: niche organizations, occasional players, traditionalists, EU players, and multilevel players are distinguished. The composition of these clusters and the characteristics of their members support the multilevel governance approach and indicate that multilevel players have greater governance capacities than organizations in the other clusters.

Theorists are becoming aware that social movements operate in both domestic & international environments, for which reason mutual benefits could be derived from exchanges of ideas between social movement & international relations studies & theories. While most writing about transnational opportunity views international institutions as presenting constraints rather than opportunities, this chapter, focusing on human rights issues, contends that certain forms of transnational contention can take advantage of opportunities available in international institutions in campaigns against states. For example, feminist groups & groups of indigenous peoples have often found the international arena more receptive to their demands than domestic political institutions. Specific cases of such cooperation around the world are presented. The framework for understanding the beneficial interaction of domestic & international politics presented in this chapter aims to provide a dynamic & interactive understanding of how the international & the domestic relate to influence the choices & outcomes of transnational networks activity; & to consider & explain the emergence of new forms of dynamic multilevel governance. Figures. J. Stanton

Research on governance has extensively explored the complex interactions of governmental, nongovernmental, & for-profit entities in the execution of public policy. It has consistently failed, however, to model empirically the joint effects of political & bureaucratic actors in governance systems. To address this issue, a theory of multilevel governance built upon the foundation of representative bureaucracy was developed & tested. Results from an analysis of Texas school districts suggest that Latinos at all levels of the governance system, political & managerial, influence representation at other levels. Findings also indicate that Latinos at each level of governance have positive effects, directly & indirectly, on outcomes for Latino students. The influence of both political & managerial actors at times extends beyond the immediately adjoining level; the effects of such actors cascade through the governance system. The results show that a priority for systematic research should be the identification of approaches & settings for examining the multilevel aspect of governance. 5 Tables, 46 References. [Copyright 2004 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.]