Asifa M. Hussain and William L. Miller
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199280711
- eISBN:
- 9780191604102
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199280711.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics
This book is a pioneering study of how multiculturalism interacts with sub-state nationalism in Britain. It gives equal attention to Scotland’s largest ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ minorities: ethnic ...
More
This book is a pioneering study of how multiculturalism interacts with sub-state nationalism in Britain. It gives equal attention to Scotland’s largest ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ minorities: ethnic Pakistanis (almost all of them Muslim) and English immigrants; and to the Islamophobia and Anglophobia of majority Scots. Rising Scottish self-consciousness could have threatened both these minorities. But in reality, problems proved to be solutions, integrating rather than alienating. In the eyes of the minorities, the devolution of power to a Scottish Parliament has made Scots at once more proud and less xenophobic. English immigrants also felt that devolution has defused tensions, calmed frustrations, and forced Scots to blame themselves rather than others for their problems. Muslims suffered increased harassment after 9/11, although less in Scotland than elsewhere. Consciously or unconsciously, they continued to use Scottish identities and even Scottish nationalism as tools of integration. Conversely, nationalism in Scotland did not increase the majority’s Islamophobia as it did in England and elsewhere. The book is based on extensive quotations from focus-group discussions with minorities, in-depth interviews with elites, and statistical analysis of large-scale surveys of minorities and majorities.Less
This book is a pioneering study of how multiculturalism interacts with sub-state nationalism in Britain. It gives equal attention to Scotland’s largest ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ minorities: ethnic Pakistanis (almost all of them Muslim) and English immigrants; and to the Islamophobia and Anglophobia of majority Scots. Rising Scottish self-consciousness could have threatened both these minorities. But in reality, problems proved to be solutions, integrating rather than alienating. In the eyes of the minorities, the devolution of power to a Scottish Parliament has made Scots at once more proud and less xenophobic. English immigrants also felt that devolution has defused tensions, calmed frustrations, and forced Scots to blame themselves rather than others for their problems. Muslims suffered increased harassment after 9/11, although less in Scotland than elsewhere. Consciously or unconsciously, they continued to use Scottish identities and even Scottish nationalism as tools of integration. Conversely, nationalism in Scotland did not increase the majority’s Islamophobia as it did in England and elsewhere. The book is based on extensive quotations from focus-group discussions with minorities, in-depth interviews with elites, and statistical analysis of large-scale surveys of minorities and majorities.
James Herbert
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780197264294
- eISBN:
- 9780191734335
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- British Academy
- DOI:
- 10.5871/bacad/9780197264294.001.0001
- Subject:
- Sociology, Education
This is an account of the establishment of the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) from among the Research Councils of the United Kingdom in 2005. It focuses on the campaign carried forward ...
More
This is an account of the establishment of the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) from among the Research Councils of the United Kingdom in 2005. It focuses on the campaign carried forward from the 1997 Dearing Report to the 2004 Higher Education Act to establish a public agency investing in humanities and arts research that would be equivalent to those funding natural and social science research. Built on interviews with leading participants, regional and national press coverage, and analysis of influential national studies, this book shows how engagement with contemporary issues — the knowledge economy, devolution, and the expansion of higher education — as well as a long tradition of scholarly excellence, led to the fashioning of a new model funding agency: an agency that addressed frontier issues in the arts and humanities such as increasing the scale of research, substantive collaboration with scientific fields, and explicit consideration of the results of research.Less
This is an account of the establishment of the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) from among the Research Councils of the United Kingdom in 2005. It focuses on the campaign carried forward from the 1997 Dearing Report to the 2004 Higher Education Act to establish a public agency investing in humanities and arts research that would be equivalent to those funding natural and social science research. Built on interviews with leading participants, regional and national press coverage, and analysis of influential national studies, this book shows how engagement with contemporary issues — the knowledge economy, devolution, and the expansion of higher education — as well as a long tradition of scholarly excellence, led to the fashioning of a new model funding agency: an agency that addressed frontier issues in the arts and humanities such as increasing the scale of research, substantive collaboration with scientific fields, and explicit consideration of the results of research.
Asifa Hussain and William Miller
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199280711
- eISBN:
- 9780191604102
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199280711.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics
‘Multicultural nationalism’ comes very close to being an oxymoron: devolution increased national self-consciousness and 9/11 added to the problems of multiculturalism everywhere, including Scotland. ...
More
‘Multicultural nationalism’ comes very close to being an oxymoron: devolution increased national self-consciousness and 9/11 added to the problems of multiculturalism everywhere, including Scotland. But in practice, potential problems proved to be solutions. Since England has a key role in defining Scottish identity, Scottish nationalism stimulates Anglophobia but not Islamophobia, and Muslims can use Scottish nationalism as a tool of integration. 9/11 made life worse for Muslims in Scotland, but not as much as elsewhere. Thus, 9/11 and the ‘war on terror’ bound Muslims more closely to Scotland. Although both minorities criticized the governing performance of the new Scottish Parliament, both felt that its street-level impact has been more positive than negative. English immigrants feel that devolution has defused tensions, and Muslims self-consciously distinguish between the positive impact of devolution and the concurrent, negative impact of 9/11. Against the odds, multiculturalism and sub-state nationalism have not merely coexisted, but actually interacted positively within post-devolution Scotland.Less
‘Multicultural nationalism’ comes very close to being an oxymoron: devolution increased national self-consciousness and 9/11 added to the problems of multiculturalism everywhere, including Scotland. But in practice, potential problems proved to be solutions. Since England has a key role in defining Scottish identity, Scottish nationalism stimulates Anglophobia but not Islamophobia, and Muslims can use Scottish nationalism as a tool of integration. 9/11 made life worse for Muslims in Scotland, but not as much as elsewhere. Thus, 9/11 and the ‘war on terror’ bound Muslims more closely to Scotland. Although both minorities criticized the governing performance of the new Scottish Parliament, both felt that its street-level impact has been more positive than negative. English immigrants feel that devolution has defused tensions, and Muslims self-consciously distinguish between the positive impact of devolution and the concurrent, negative impact of 9/11. Against the odds, multiculturalism and sub-state nationalism have not merely coexisted, but actually interacted positively within post-devolution Scotland.
Benjamin Reilly
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199286874
- eISBN:
- 9780191713156
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286874.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This chapter examines the theory and practice of the various approaches to the sharing and dividing of governing power in the Asia-Pacific. It first looks at the broad issues of executive structure ...
More
This chapter examines the theory and practice of the various approaches to the sharing and dividing of governing power in the Asia-Pacific. It first looks at the broad issues of executive structure and the distinction between presidential and parliamentary systems across the region, at the divergent approaches taken by Asian and Pacific states to both formal and informal practices of executive inclusion, and at the empirical relationship between these variables and broader goals of political stability. An ‘index of power-sharing’ is constructed to compare the horizontal sharing of powers over time. The experience of vertical power-sharing via measures such as federalism, devolution, and autonomy is then considered. Overall, the evidence suggests that while informal executive power-sharing practices have been relatively successful, formal requirements for inclusive cabinets have been dogged by problems.Less
This chapter examines the theory and practice of the various approaches to the sharing and dividing of governing power in the Asia-Pacific. It first looks at the broad issues of executive structure and the distinction between presidential and parliamentary systems across the region, at the divergent approaches taken by Asian and Pacific states to both formal and informal practices of executive inclusion, and at the empirical relationship between these variables and broader goals of political stability. An ‘index of power-sharing’ is constructed to compare the horizontal sharing of powers over time. The experience of vertical power-sharing via measures such as federalism, devolution, and autonomy is then considered. Overall, the evidence suggests that while informal executive power-sharing practices have been relatively successful, formal requirements for inclusive cabinets have been dogged by problems.
John Kincaid
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199245000
- eISBN:
- 9780191599996
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199245002.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union
Critically examines the fashionable notion that the steady trajectory of USA federalism in recent decades has been in the direction of decentralization or devolution; the case made rests above all on ...
More
Critically examines the fashionable notion that the steady trajectory of USA federalism in recent decades has been in the direction of decentralization or devolution; the case made rests above all on the pervasiveness of concurrency: ‘All public functions are likely to involve intergovernmental power‐sharing in one way or another . . . The centralization that has occurred in the USA has rarely involved wholesale federal occupation of policy fields . . . often in a positive‐sum manner in which there is a concomitant expansion of State and/or local government powers’. In this context, so‐called devolution in the USA has been far from a wholesale transfer of power but rather a series of halfway measures. More importantly, if legitimacy has not been enhanced through outright devolution—presumably an unachievable first‐best in the author's view—then ‘issues of process’ are vital. That is the legitimacy of the norms, institutions, and mechanisms that allow constant adjustment of roles and responsibilities between levels of government in response to changing circumstances and changing citizen preferences. The four sections of the chapter look in turn at definitions of devolution, explanations for the disjunction between devolution, rhetoric and devolution reality in the USA, devolution politics, and the implications for the EU.Less
Critically examines the fashionable notion that the steady trajectory of USA federalism in recent decades has been in the direction of decentralization or devolution; the case made rests above all on the pervasiveness of concurrency: ‘All public functions are likely to involve intergovernmental power‐sharing in one way or another . . . The centralization that has occurred in the USA has rarely involved wholesale federal occupation of policy fields . . . often in a positive‐sum manner in which there is a concomitant expansion of State and/or local government powers’. In this context, so‐called devolution in the USA has been far from a wholesale transfer of power but rather a series of halfway measures. More importantly, if legitimacy has not been enhanced through outright devolution—presumably an unachievable first‐best in the author's view—then ‘issues of process’ are vital. That is the legitimacy of the norms, institutions, and mechanisms that allow constant adjustment of roles and responsibilities between levels of government in response to changing circumstances and changing citizen preferences. The four sections of the chapter look in turn at definitions of devolution, explanations for the disjunction between devolution, rhetoric and devolution reality in the USA, devolution politics, and the implications for the EU.
Sonia Alonso
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199691579
- eISBN:
- 9780191741234
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691579.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, European Union
How do state parties react to the challenge of peripheral parties demanding political power to be devolved to their culturally distinct territories? Is devolution the best response to these demands? ...
More
How do state parties react to the challenge of peripheral parties demanding political power to be devolved to their culturally distinct territories? Is devolution the best response to these demands? Why do governments implement devolution given the high risk that devolution will encourage peripheral parties to demand ever more devolved powers? The aim of this book is to answer these questions through a comparative analysis of devolution in four European countries: Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The book argues that electoral competition between state and peripheral parties pushes some state parties to prefer devolution when their state-wide majorities or pluralities are seriously at risk. Devolution is an electoral strategy adopted in order to make it more difficult in the long term for peripheral parties to increase their electoral support by claiming the monopoly of representation of the peripheral territory and the people in it. The strategy of devolution is preferred over short-term tactics of convergence towards the peripheral programmatic agenda because the pro-periphery tactics of state parties in unitary centralized states are not credible in the eyes of voters. The price that state parties pay for making their electoral tactics credible is the ‘entrenchment’ of the devolution programmatic agenda in the electoral arena. The final implication of this argument is that in democratic systems devolution is not a decision to protect the state from the secessionist threat. It is, instead, a decision by state parties to protect their needed electoral majoritiesLess
How do state parties react to the challenge of peripheral parties demanding political power to be devolved to their culturally distinct territories? Is devolution the best response to these demands? Why do governments implement devolution given the high risk that devolution will encourage peripheral parties to demand ever more devolved powers? The aim of this book is to answer these questions through a comparative analysis of devolution in four European countries: Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The book argues that electoral competition between state and peripheral parties pushes some state parties to prefer devolution when their state-wide majorities or pluralities are seriously at risk. Devolution is an electoral strategy adopted in order to make it more difficult in the long term for peripheral parties to increase their electoral support by claiming the monopoly of representation of the peripheral territory and the people in it. The strategy of devolution is preferred over short-term tactics of convergence towards the peripheral programmatic agenda because the pro-periphery tactics of state parties in unitary centralized states are not credible in the eyes of voters. The price that state parties pay for making their electoral tactics credible is the ‘entrenchment’ of the devolution programmatic agenda in the electoral arena. The final implication of this argument is that in democratic systems devolution is not a decision to protect the state from the secessionist threat. It is, instead, a decision by state parties to protect their needed electoral majorities
Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- November 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199261185
- eISBN:
- 9780191601507
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199261180.003.0017
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
Besides decentralization to executive agencies and social organizations, public management reform involves devolution to sub-national units of activities and the corresponding fiscal resources to ...
More
Besides decentralization to executive agencies and social organizations, public management reform involves devolution to sub-national units of activities and the corresponding fiscal resources to finance them. It involves also making public managers more autonomous and more accountable. In synthesis, decentralization–delegating authority to lower levels–is crucial to managerial public administration. Decentralization is a public management strategy, but devolution is a political decision with managerial consequences. Decentralization is often decided top-down and is a strategy for increasing the head-offices’ capacity to achieve proposed objectives, but devolution is usually a response to demands for more local or regional autonomy to which government officials in the central government reluctantly accede.Less
Besides decentralization to executive agencies and social organizations, public management reform involves devolution to sub-national units of activities and the corresponding fiscal resources to finance them. It involves also making public managers more autonomous and more accountable. In synthesis, decentralization–delegating authority to lower levels–is crucial to managerial public administration. Decentralization is a public management strategy, but devolution is a political decision with managerial consequences. Decentralization is often decided top-down and is a strategy for increasing the head-offices’ capacity to achieve proposed objectives, but devolution is usually a response to demands for more local or regional autonomy to which government officials in the central government reluctantly accede.
John McGarry and Brendan O'Leary
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- August 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199266579
- eISBN:
- 9780191601446
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199266573.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics
The chapter gives an evaluation of the inconsistencies in the conservatives' approach to Northern Ireland under Prime ministers Thatcher and Major. It applauds the Conservatives eventual recognition ...
More
The chapter gives an evaluation of the inconsistencies in the conservatives' approach to Northern Ireland under Prime ministers Thatcher and Major. It applauds the Conservatives eventual recognition that intergovernmental cooperation with Dublin was essential to the successful management of the conflict - even if it took some ministers nearly two decades to relearn what Conservative prime minister Heath had appreciated in 1973.Less
The chapter gives an evaluation of the inconsistencies in the conservatives' approach to Northern Ireland under Prime ministers Thatcher and Major. It applauds the Conservatives eventual recognition that intergovernmental cooperation with Dublin was essential to the successful management of the conflict - even if it took some ministers nearly two decades to relearn what Conservative prime minister Heath had appreciated in 1973.
Matthew Flinders
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199271603
- eISBN:
- 9780191709241
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271603.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics, Political Economy
The delegation of functions and responsibilities to quasi-autonomous bodies operating with a significant degree of autonomy arguably empowers governments to address a wide range of social issues ...
More
The delegation of functions and responsibilities to quasi-autonomous bodies operating with a significant degree of autonomy arguably empowers governments to address a wide range of social issues simultaneously without having to be involved with the minutiae of day-to-day socio-political interactions. Delegation therefore provides a structural and esoteric capacity beyond the cognitive and physical limits of politicians. There is nothing wrong with delegation as such. The problem relates to the failure to manage delegation in Britain. And yet we actually know very little about how the state beyond the core actually operates, how many bodies exist, what they do, how they are recruited, or why they were created. These gaps in our knowledge are all the more problematic in light of recent pronouncements by politicians at the national and European levels that ‘depoliticization’ is a central strand of their approach to governing. This book seeks to fill these gaps in our knowledge while at the same time cultivating a more balanced or sophisticated approach to the study of delegation. Delegated public bodies as they have been used as a tool of governance in the past should not be confused with how they might be used in the future. This book draws upon research conducted within the very core of the British political system during a Whitehall Fellowship within the Cabinet Office. It argues that the British state is ‘walking without order’ due to a general acceptance of the logic of delegation without any detailed or principled consideration of the administrative of democratic consequences of this process.Less
The delegation of functions and responsibilities to quasi-autonomous bodies operating with a significant degree of autonomy arguably empowers governments to address a wide range of social issues simultaneously without having to be involved with the minutiae of day-to-day socio-political interactions. Delegation therefore provides a structural and esoteric capacity beyond the cognitive and physical limits of politicians. There is nothing wrong with delegation as such. The problem relates to the failure to manage delegation in Britain. And yet we actually know very little about how the state beyond the core actually operates, how many bodies exist, what they do, how they are recruited, or why they were created. These gaps in our knowledge are all the more problematic in light of recent pronouncements by politicians at the national and European levels that ‘depoliticization’ is a central strand of their approach to governing. This book seeks to fill these gaps in our knowledge while at the same time cultivating a more balanced or sophisticated approach to the study of delegation. Delegated public bodies as they have been used as a tool of governance in the past should not be confused with how they might be used in the future. This book draws upon research conducted within the very core of the British political system during a Whitehall Fellowship within the Cabinet Office. It argues that the British state is ‘walking without order’ due to a general acceptance of the logic of delegation without any detailed or principled consideration of the administrative of democratic consequences of this process.
Andrew Hindmoor
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199273140
- eISBN:
- 9780191601897
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199273146.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics
This chapter examines New Labour’s efforts to rhetorically construct the political centre based on its policies on devolution, minimum wage, trade union recognition, and tax increase in the 2002 ...
More
This chapter examines New Labour’s efforts to rhetorically construct the political centre based on its policies on devolution, minimum wage, trade union recognition, and tax increase in the 2002 budget. It is argued that policies are not left-wing because policies are not ‘really’ anything. New Labour used definitions, comparisons, ridicule, authority, and arguments about cause and effect, contradiction, and sacrifice to persuade voters that its policies were at the political centre.Less
This chapter examines New Labour’s efforts to rhetorically construct the political centre based on its policies on devolution, minimum wage, trade union recognition, and tax increase in the 2002 budget. It is argued that policies are not left-wing because policies are not ‘really’ anything. New Labour used definitions, comparisons, ridicule, authority, and arguments about cause and effect, contradiction, and sacrifice to persuade voters that its policies were at the political centre.
Iain McLean
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199546954
- eISBN:
- 9780191720031
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546954.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, UK Politics
In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both ...
More
In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative. The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses. This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the United Kingdom exists by virtue of a constitutional contract between two previously independent states. Professor McLean argues that the work of the influential constitutional theorist A. V. Dicey has little to offer those who really want to understand the nature of the constitution. Instead, greater understanding can be gleaned from considering the ‘veto plays’ and ‘credible threats’ available to politicians since 1707. He suggests that the idea the people are sovereign dates back to the seventeenth century (may be fourteenth century in Scotland), but has gone underground in English constitutional writing. He goes on to show that devolution and the United Kingdom's relationship with the rest of Europe have taken the United Kingdom along a constitutionalist road since 1972, and perhaps since 1920. He concludes that no intellectually defensible case can be made for retaining an unelected house of Parliament, an unelected head of state, or an established church. This book will be an essential reading for political scientists, constitutional lawyers, historians, politicians, and the like.Less
In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative. The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses. This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the United Kingdom exists by virtue of a constitutional contract between two previously independent states. Professor McLean argues that the work of the influential constitutional theorist A. V. Dicey has little to offer those who really want to understand the nature of the constitution. Instead, greater understanding can be gleaned from considering the ‘veto plays’ and ‘credible threats’ available to politicians since 1707. He suggests that the idea the people are sovereign dates back to the seventeenth century (may be fourteenth century in Scotland), but has gone underground in English constitutional writing. He goes on to show that devolution and the United Kingdom's relationship with the rest of Europe have taken the United Kingdom along a constitutionalist road since 1972, and perhaps since 1920. He concludes that no intellectually defensible case can be made for retaining an unelected house of Parliament, an unelected head of state, or an established church. This book will be an essential reading for political scientists, constitutional lawyers, historians, politicians, and the like.
Daniel Béland and André Lecours
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199546848
- eISBN:
- 9780191720468
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546848.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
Despite the recent proliferation of literature on nationalism and on social policy, relatively little has been written to analyse the possible interaction between the two. Scholars interested in ...
More
Despite the recent proliferation of literature on nationalism and on social policy, relatively little has been written to analyse the possible interaction between the two. Scholars interested in social citizenship have indirectly dealt with the interaction between national identity and social programmes such as the British NHS, but they have seldom examined this connection in reference to nationalism. Specialists of nationalism rarely mention social policy, focusing instead on language, culture, ethnicity, and religion. The main objective of this book is to explore the nature of the connection between nationalism and social policy from a comparative and historical perspective. At the theoretical level, this analysis will shed new light on a more general issue: the relationships between identity formation, territorial politics, and social policy. Although this book refers to the experience of many different countries, the main cases are three multinational states, that is, states featuring strong nationalist movements: Canada (Quebec), the United Kingdom (Scotland), and Belgium (Flanders). The book looks at the interplay between nationalism and social policy at both the state and sub-state levels through a detailed comparison between these three cases. The concluding chapter brings in cases of mono-national states (i.e. France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States) to provide broader comparative insight on the meshing of nationalism and social policy. The original theoretical framework for this research is built using insight from selected scholarship on nationalism and on the welfare state.Less
Despite the recent proliferation of literature on nationalism and on social policy, relatively little has been written to analyse the possible interaction between the two. Scholars interested in social citizenship have indirectly dealt with the interaction between national identity and social programmes such as the British NHS, but they have seldom examined this connection in reference to nationalism. Specialists of nationalism rarely mention social policy, focusing instead on language, culture, ethnicity, and religion. The main objective of this book is to explore the nature of the connection between nationalism and social policy from a comparative and historical perspective. At the theoretical level, this analysis will shed new light on a more general issue: the relationships between identity formation, territorial politics, and social policy. Although this book refers to the experience of many different countries, the main cases are three multinational states, that is, states featuring strong nationalist movements: Canada (Quebec), the United Kingdom (Scotland), and Belgium (Flanders). The book looks at the interplay between nationalism and social policy at both the state and sub-state levels through a detailed comparison between these three cases. The concluding chapter brings in cases of mono-national states (i.e. France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States) to provide broader comparative insight on the meshing of nationalism and social policy. The original theoretical framework for this research is built using insight from selected scholarship on nationalism and on the welfare state.
IAN BACHE and MATTHEW FLINDERS
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199259250
- eISBN:
- 9780191600968
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199259259.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders assess the value of multi‐level governance in relation to British politics. A number of authors in this field have developed governance approaches, often in explicit ...
More
Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders assess the value of multi‐level governance in relation to British politics. A number of authors in this field have developed governance approaches, often in explicit counterpoint to the dominant framework for understanding British politics, the Westminster Model (WM). The governance literature points to challenges to state power in the context of the upwards, downwards, and sideways flows of competences discussed above. However, they argue that the related processes of devolution and decentralization have given added resonance to the ‘multi‐level’ dimension of governance within the territorial boundaries of the British State.Less
Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders assess the value of multi‐level governance in relation to British politics. A number of authors in this field have developed governance approaches, often in explicit counterpoint to the dominant framework for understanding British politics, the Westminster Model (WM). The governance literature points to challenges to state power in the context of the upwards, downwards, and sideways flows of competences discussed above. However, they argue that the related processes of devolution and decentralization have given added resonance to the ‘multi‐level’ dimension of governance within the territorial boundaries of the British State.
Kalypso Nicolaidis and Robert Howse (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199245000
- eISBN:
- 9780191599996
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199245002.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union
This book is about the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance in the US and the European Union. On the basis of a transatlantic dialogue between scholars concerned about modes ...
More
This book is about the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance in the US and the European Union. On the basis of a transatlantic dialogue between scholars concerned about modes of governance on both sides, it is a collective attempt at analysing the ramifications of the legitimacy crisis in these multi‐layered democracies, and possible remedies to this. Starting from a focus on the current policy debates over ‘devolution’ and ‘subsidiarity’, the book engages the reader into the broader tension of comparative federalism. Its authors believe that in spite of the fundamental differences between them, both the EU and the USA are in the process of re‐defining a federal vision for the twenty‐first century. The book is a contribution to the study of federalism and European integration, and seeks to bridge the divide between the two. It also bridges the traditional divide between technical, legal or regulatory discussions of federal governance and philosophical debates over questions of belonging and multiple identities. It is a multi‐disciplinary project, bringing together historians, political scientists and theorists, legal scholars, sociologists and political economists (more than 20 authors are involved), and includes both innovative analysis and prescriptions on how to reshape the federal contract in the USA and the EU. Included are introductions to the history of federalism in the USA and the EU, the current debates over devolution and subsidiarity, the legal framework of federalism and theories of regulatory federalism, as well as innovative approaches to the application of network analysis, principal‐agent models, institutionalist analysis, and political theories of citizenship to the federal context. The introduction and conclusion by the editors draws out cross‐cutting themes and lessons from the thinking together of the EU and USA experiences, and suggest how a ‘federal vision’ could be freed from the hierarchical paradigm of the ‘federal state’ and articulated around concepts of mutual tolerance and empowerment. The seventeen chapters are arranged in five sections: I. Articulating the Federal Vision (two chapters)—views of federalism in its USA and EU versions; II. Levels of Governance in the USA and the European Union: Facts and Diagnosis (four chapters)—an overview of the history and current state of federalism in the USA and EU; III. Legal and Regulatory Instruments of Federal Governance (three chapters); IV. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Governance: Models for Understanding (four chapters); V. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Identity (four chapters)—a discussion of the deeper roots of legitimacy in federal systems; there is also an appendix, which discusses the basic principles for the allocation of competence in the USA and EU.Less
This book is about the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance in the US and the European Union. On the basis of a transatlantic dialogue between scholars concerned about modes of governance on both sides, it is a collective attempt at analysing the ramifications of the legitimacy crisis in these multi‐layered democracies, and possible remedies to this. Starting from a focus on the current policy debates over ‘devolution’ and ‘subsidiarity’, the book engages the reader into the broader tension of comparative federalism. Its authors believe that in spite of the fundamental differences between them, both the EU and the USA are in the process of re‐defining a federal vision for the twenty‐first century. The book is a contribution to the study of federalism and European integration, and seeks to bridge the divide between the two. It also bridges the traditional divide between technical, legal or regulatory discussions of federal governance and philosophical debates over questions of belonging and multiple identities. It is a multi‐disciplinary project, bringing together historians, political scientists and theorists, legal scholars, sociologists and political economists (more than 20 authors are involved), and includes both innovative analysis and prescriptions on how to reshape the federal contract in the USA and the EU. Included are introductions to the history of federalism in the USA and the EU, the current debates over devolution and subsidiarity, the legal framework of federalism and theories of regulatory federalism, as well as innovative approaches to the application of network analysis, principal‐agent models, institutionalist analysis, and political theories of citizenship to the federal context. The introduction and conclusion by the editors draws out cross‐cutting themes and lessons from the thinking together of the EU and USA experiences, and suggest how a ‘federal vision’ could be freed from the hierarchical paradigm of the ‘federal state’ and articulated around concepts of mutual tolerance and empowerment. The seventeen chapters are arranged in five sections: I. Articulating the Federal Vision (two chapters)—views of federalism in its USA and EU versions; II. Levels of Governance in the USA and the European Union: Facts and Diagnosis (four chapters)—an overview of the history and current state of federalism in the USA and EU; III. Legal and Regulatory Instruments of Federal Governance (three chapters); IV. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Governance: Models for Understanding (four chapters); V. Federalism, Legitimacy, and Identity (four chapters)—a discussion of the deeper roots of legitimacy in federal systems; there is also an appendix, which discusses the basic principles for the allocation of competence in the USA and EU.
Matthew Flinders
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199271603
- eISBN:
- 9780191709241
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271603.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics, Political Economy
One prominent alternative to the challenges of delegation rests on the movement of responsibilities above and below the nation state to democratic structures that may offer greater capacity in terms ...
More
One prominent alternative to the challenges of delegation rests on the movement of responsibilities above and below the nation state to democratic structures that may offer greater capacity in terms of scrutiny and control. This chapter focuses on decentralization and devolution. It contains sections on the degree to which the implementation of devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland since 1998 has led to a reduction in the sphere of delegated governance within those territories, or the imposition of tighter and more transparent governance frameworks. In order to complete the analyses of vertical decentralization, the chapter also examines the role of delegated governance within the European level.Less
One prominent alternative to the challenges of delegation rests on the movement of responsibilities above and below the nation state to democratic structures that may offer greater capacity in terms of scrutiny and control. This chapter focuses on decentralization and devolution. It contains sections on the degree to which the implementation of devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland since 1998 has led to a reduction in the sphere of delegated governance within those territories, or the imposition of tighter and more transparent governance frameworks. In order to complete the analyses of vertical decentralization, the chapter also examines the role of delegated governance within the European level.
Iain McLean
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199546954
- eISBN:
- 9780191720031
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546954.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, UK Politics
Devolution to Scotland since 1707. Church patronage 1707–1874. The Disruption 1843. The Jacobite risings. The Scottish Enlightenment. Revival of devolution since the 1960s. The shotgun conversion of ...
More
Devolution to Scotland since 1707. Church patronage 1707–1874. The Disruption 1843. The Jacobite risings. The Scottish Enlightenment. Revival of devolution since the 1960s. The shotgun conversion of Scottish Labour 1974. Failure 1974–9; success 1989–99. The Claim of Right (1689 and) 1989. Devolution to Northern Ireland since 1920. A Protestant Parliament in a Protestant state. The Troubles. The Good Friday Agreement. Constitutional framework. Devolution to Wales since 1964. ‘And to a lesser extent Wales.’ The weakest territorial department: Aberfan. Constitutional issues arising out of devolution. The Barnett Formula. The West Lothian Question, true and false. ‘English votes on English laws.’ Authority of subordinate parliaments. Formal (but empty) Diceyanism of the devolution statues. The Sewel Convention.Less
Devolution to Scotland since 1707. Church patronage 1707–1874. The Disruption 1843. The Jacobite risings. The Scottish Enlightenment. Revival of devolution since the 1960s. The shotgun conversion of Scottish Labour 1974. Failure 1974–9; success 1989–99. The Claim of Right (1689 and) 1989. Devolution to Northern Ireland since 1920. A Protestant Parliament in a Protestant state. The Troubles. The Good Friday Agreement. Constitutional framework. Devolution to Wales since 1964. ‘And to a lesser extent Wales.’ The weakest territorial department: Aberfan. Constitutional issues arising out of devolution. The Barnett Formula. The West Lothian Question, true and false. ‘English votes on English laws.’ Authority of subordinate parliaments. Formal (but empty) Diceyanism of the devolution statues. The Sewel Convention.
Daniel Béland and André Lecours
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199546848
- eISBN:
- 9780191720468
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546848.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
Chapter 3 looks at Scotland in the United Kingdom to explore the relationship between nationalism and social policy. It explains how the relationship between British nation-building and social policy ...
More
Chapter 3 looks at Scotland in the United Kingdom to explore the relationship between nationalism and social policy. It explains how the relationship between British nation-building and social policy emerged during the post-war era and outlines the particular importance of this process in Scotland, which depended more upon social benefits than did the South of England. It then explores the mobilization process favouring devolution for Scotland in the context of social policy retrenchment, and shows how these two issues meshed during Thatcherism. Finally, it analyses the impact of devolution on social policy development in Scotland and in the United Kingdom at large. Although it is too early to draw definite conclusions about the nature and extent of this impact, it is clear that the institutional and political transformations involved in devolution have affected policy processes and outcomes.Less
Chapter 3 looks at Scotland in the United Kingdom to explore the relationship between nationalism and social policy. It explains how the relationship between British nation-building and social policy emerged during the post-war era and outlines the particular importance of this process in Scotland, which depended more upon social benefits than did the South of England. It then explores the mobilization process favouring devolution for Scotland in the context of social policy retrenchment, and shows how these two issues meshed during Thatcherism. Finally, it analyses the impact of devolution on social policy development in Scotland and in the United Kingdom at large. Although it is too early to draw definite conclusions about the nature and extent of this impact, it is clear that the institutional and political transformations involved in devolution have affected policy processes and outcomes.
David E. Apter
- Published in print:
- 1998
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294719
- eISBN:
- 9780191599361
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294719.003.0015
- Subject:
- Political Science, Reference
Traces the development of intellectual traditions in comparative politics from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’. ‘Old’ comparative politics reflects a focus on institutionalism and ‘new’ comparative politics ...
More
Traces the development of intellectual traditions in comparative politics from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’. ‘Old’ comparative politics reflects a focus on institutionalism and ‘new’ comparative politics has arisen in part because of the end of the Cold War, devolution of powers, the rise of social democracy in Europe, decolonization, and democratization. We are now witnessing ‘neo‐institutionalism’, characterized by a restoration of the political to centre stage, the use of rational choice perspectives, and economic analysis due to the importance of market forces and globalization.Less
Traces the development of intellectual traditions in comparative politics from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’. ‘Old’ comparative politics reflects a focus on institutionalism and ‘new’ comparative politics has arisen in part because of the end of the Cold War, devolution of powers, the rise of social democracy in Europe, decolonization, and democratization. We are now witnessing ‘neo‐institutionalism’, characterized by a restoration of the political to centre stage, the use of rational choice perspectives, and economic analysis due to the importance of market forces and globalization.
Robert Howse and Kalypso Nicolaidis
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199245000
- eISBN:
- 9780191599996
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199245002.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union
Describes the aim of the book as a contribution towards articulating a federal vision of governance in the USA and in the European Union, and addressing the complex and changing relationship between ...
More
Describes the aim of the book as a contribution towards articulating a federal vision of governance in the USA and in the European Union, and addressing the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance within both polities at a time when they are revisiting the meaning of divided sovereignty. The origin of the book was a desire on the part of scholars from both sides of the Atlantic to compare notes about the issues of multi‐level governance in their respective polities that are the focus of their scholarship, and the starting point was to juxtapose and contrast what may broadly be referred to as the ‘devolution debates’ in the USA and the ‘subsidiarity debates’ in the EU. The book as a whole is a collective and multi‐disciplinary attempt at analysing the ramifications of the legitimacy crisis in these multi‐layered democracies, and seeks not only to bridge the transatlantic divide on the study of federalism and European integration, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the traditional academic divide between technical, legal, or regulatory discussions of federal governance and philosophical debates over questions of belonging, citizenship, and multiple identities. The four sections of the introduction discuss the challenge of legitimacy and ‘thinking together’, present a caveat on European ‘federalism’, and provide a ‘roadmap’ to the volume.Less
Describes the aim of the book as a contribution towards articulating a federal vision of governance in the USA and in the European Union, and addressing the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance within both polities at a time when they are revisiting the meaning of divided sovereignty. The origin of the book was a desire on the part of scholars from both sides of the Atlantic to compare notes about the issues of multi‐level governance in their respective polities that are the focus of their scholarship, and the starting point was to juxtapose and contrast what may broadly be referred to as the ‘devolution debates’ in the USA and the ‘subsidiarity debates’ in the EU. The book as a whole is a collective and multi‐disciplinary attempt at analysing the ramifications of the legitimacy crisis in these multi‐layered democracies, and seeks not only to bridge the transatlantic divide on the study of federalism and European integration, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the traditional academic divide between technical, legal, or regulatory discussions of federal governance and philosophical debates over questions of belonging, citizenship, and multiple identities. The four sections of the introduction discuss the challenge of legitimacy and ‘thinking together’, present a caveat on European ‘federalism’, and provide a ‘roadmap’ to the volume.
David Lazer and Viktor Mayer‐Schoenberger
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199245000
- eISBN:
- 9780191599996
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199245002.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union
Examines the most recent attempts in both the USA and the EU to respond to attacks on the legitimacy of ‘federal’ governance by building into the legislative or regulatory processes a federalism or ...
More
Examines the most recent attempts in both the USA and the EU to respond to attacks on the legitimacy of ‘federal’ governance by building into the legislative or regulatory processes a federalism or subsidiarity criterion. The authors show that such criteria, when formulated as guidance on ‘where’ policy should be made, have been largely ineffective and inoperable; ‘federalism’ criteria have been subsumed and assumed away under either purely political decisions over the scope of devolution or broader cost‐benefit analysis in the USA, and the EU has not abandoned significant policies under its ‘subsidiarity review’. In contrast, there has been increased use of ‘how’ criteria, which increase accountability of central decision‐making by requiring a publicized process of justification for the policies. ‘Procedural subsidiarity’ is a concept relevant to governance on both sides, as they each have come to focus on how to provide more discretion to lower levels of governance in implementing or administering federal policies—although that has been achieved in very different ways in the USA and the EU. In short, the authors make the case that new sources of legitimate governance are not mainly to be found in the recent subsidiarity and devolution pledges appended to the USA and EU covenants.Less
Examines the most recent attempts in both the USA and the EU to respond to attacks on the legitimacy of ‘federal’ governance by building into the legislative or regulatory processes a federalism or subsidiarity criterion. The authors show that such criteria, when formulated as guidance on ‘where’ policy should be made, have been largely ineffective and inoperable; ‘federalism’ criteria have been subsumed and assumed away under either purely political decisions over the scope of devolution or broader cost‐benefit analysis in the USA, and the EU has not abandoned significant policies under its ‘subsidiarity review’. In contrast, there has been increased use of ‘how’ criteria, which increase accountability of central decision‐making by requiring a publicized process of justification for the policies. ‘Procedural subsidiarity’ is a concept relevant to governance on both sides, as they each have come to focus on how to provide more discretion to lower levels of governance in implementing or administering federal policies—although that has been achieved in very different ways in the USA and the EU. In short, the authors make the case that new sources of legitimate governance are not mainly to be found in the recent subsidiarity and devolution pledges appended to the USA and EU covenants.
