Zur Bedeutung „transnationalen Sozialkapitals“: Sind Grenzgebiete Laboratorien sozialer Integration in Europa?

The article focuses on transnational relations in border regions. Social capital theory assumes that in border regions special opportunity structures exist for the social integration of the population of old and new member states of the European Union based on the specific possibilities for cross-border cooperation. Border regions may be seen as “laboratories of social integration”. The article discusses whether “transnational social capital” actually develops and to what extent it adds to the social integration of the regions and of Europe. Representative survey data from the German-Polish, German-Czech, and German-French border regions – gathered on both sides of the border – serve as the basis of the analysis. Results show that currently – especially on the old outer borders of the EU – the accumulated transnational social capital adds very little to social integration at the regional and European level.     

How Does Decentralized Governance Work? Evidence from China

Decentralized governance is often viewed as an effective way to improve public services and government accountability. Many also document the negative dimensions of fiscal decentralization, especially in transition economies; thus, the combination of decentralization and centralized control has gained currency in some countries in recent years. Based on first-hand data and other documentary sources, and using civil service remuneration as an example, this paper attempts to explore how decentralized governance works in China and what hinders decentralization from performing better. The findings show that Chinese centralized control over expenditure in public sector remuneration primarily serves to enhance ministry control. Local bureaucrats, meanwhile, exploit better remuneration to boost their personal interests. This paper argues that political commitment rather than central transfer is greatly needed for utilizing the benefits of decentralized governance.     

The Europeanisation of the German Bundestag: Institutional change and informal adaptation

At first glance, the Europeanisation of the German Bundestag seems quite straightforward: in reaction to the process of European integration the Bundestag acquired a set of comparatively strong participation and scrutiny rights in EU politics. It therefore seems rather astonishing that German members of parliament make only very little use of these rights. Different explanations have been put forward in the literature, such as the complicated decision-making system of the EU and the government's gate-keeper position within it, institutional flaws of the German scrutiny system as well as the overall consensus on European integration and the low electoral salience of EU issues. The paper contributes to this discussion in two respects: On the one hand, it offers an additional explanation for the infrequent use of formal instruments. The main argument is that the formal instruments of scrutiny in EU affairs are incompatible with both the overall logic of a parliamentary system as well as the challenges of policy-making in the EU multilevel system. On the other hand, the paper argues that the exclusive focus on the use of formal parliamentary scrutiny rights leads us to overlook more informal means of parliamentary influence and therefore to underestimate the involvement of German parliamentarians in EU affairs. Thus, in order to fully assess processes of parliamentary Europeanisation, we need to take forms of informal or strategic Europeanisation into account.