Multi-level governance and subnational research: Similarities, differences, and knowledge accumulation in the study of territorial politics

IF 1.7 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Regional and Federal Studies Pub Date : 2021-06-23 DOI:10.1080/13597566.2021.1941900
Agustina Giraudy, Sara Niedzwiecki
{"title":"Multi-level governance and subnational research: Similarities, differences, and knowledge accumulation in the study of territorial politics","authors":"Agustina Giraudy, Sara Niedzwiecki","doi":"10.1080/13597566.2021.1941900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Subnational Research (SNR) and Multilevel Governance (MLG) research programs have tackled some of the crucial questions in comparative politics. Despite their shared principle that actors and institutions located at one territorial level are shaped by and shape other levels of government, each tradition has developed its own set of concepts and theories without fully acknowledging the other. We believe that this has been detrimental for knowledge accumulation. We argue that more knowledge accumulation in the study of territorial politics is possible if (1) scholars engage with each tradition, and (2) they are attentive to differences, or blind spots, in each traditions’ theories, concepts, and scope conditions. Drawing on two examples, the Regional Authority Index (RAI) and Kent Eaton’s work (2021) we show the benefits of transcending the boundaries of each tradition. We conclude by proposing a unified framework for the study of territorial politics that incorporates both SNR and MLG.","PeriodicalId":46657,"journal":{"name":"Regional and Federal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13597566.2021.1941900","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional and Federal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2021.1941900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Subnational Research (SNR) and Multilevel Governance (MLG) research programs have tackled some of the crucial questions in comparative politics. Despite their shared principle that actors and institutions located at one territorial level are shaped by and shape other levels of government, each tradition has developed its own set of concepts and theories without fully acknowledging the other. We believe that this has been detrimental for knowledge accumulation. We argue that more knowledge accumulation in the study of territorial politics is possible if (1) scholars engage with each tradition, and (2) they are attentive to differences, or blind spots, in each traditions’ theories, concepts, and scope conditions. Drawing on two examples, the Regional Authority Index (RAI) and Kent Eaton’s work (2021) we show the benefits of transcending the boundaries of each tradition. We conclude by proposing a unified framework for the study of territorial politics that incorporates both SNR and MLG.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多层次治理与次国家研究:地域政治研究的异同与知识积累
次国家研究(SNR)和多层次治理(MLG)研究项目解决了比较政治学中的一些关键问题。尽管它们都有一个共同的原则,即位于一个领土一级的行为者和机构受其他一级政府的影响并影响其他一级政府,但每种传统都发展了自己的一套概念和理论,而没有完全承认对方。我们认为这不利于知识积累。我们认为,如果:(1)学者与每一种传统都有接触,(2)他们注意到每种传统的理论、概念和范围条件的差异或盲点,就有可能在领土政治研究中积累更多的知识。通过两个例子,区域权威指数(RAI)和肯特·伊顿(Kent Eaton)的工作(2021),我们展示了超越每种传统界限的好处。最后,我们提出了一个统一的领土政治研究框架,其中包括信噪比和MLG。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Regional and Federal Studies
Regional and Federal Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
21.40%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: The upsurge of academic and political interest in regional and federal questions since the 1980s has been stimulated by the salience of regions in EU policy-making and the Structural Funds but also by regionalization and federalization processes in many Western states. The most striking example is the devolution occurring in the UK, but the process is at work all over Europe and in other parts of the world. These developments have led to many important research programmes and projects. Regional and Federal Studies is a refereed social science journal which provides an academic forum for the publication of international research on these issues. It is essential reading for both academics and practitioners in politics, administration and the business world.
期刊最新文献
Australian state and territory elections: regional incumbents matter Moving beyond the second-order election model? Diverging electoral fortunes in Scotland and Wales: national identities, national interests, and voting behavior National political parties or regional movements? The case of Peru’s 2018 regional elections Blame, hope, or gratitude? Voting decisions during the pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1