While the US Constitution expressly grants the federation the power to tax, Article 311 TFEU is silent on whether such power exists at the EU level. This contribution argues that the Union has the power to tax, provided that the chosen resources in the basket match the objectives and policies of the Union. Since the achievement of the internal market is a shared competence (Article 4 TFEU), the Union can decide the level of resources tailored to this goal. Although the Union has a broad power to tax under Article 311 TFEU to pursue its objectives and policies, the member states are still the “masters,” able to decide the level of resources under the unanimity rule. To resolve this paradox, this contribution embraces a democratic legitimacy of EU taxes that grant the European Parliament the power to decide the revenue side of the EU budget. EU democratic taxes approved by the European Parliament could reaffirm the redistributive function of taxes, thereby allowing the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.
{"title":"Building up the EU Revenue Side: But What Is a Tax in EU Law?","authors":"Ricardo García Antón","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i4.7176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i4.7176","url":null,"abstract":"While the US Constitution expressly grants the federation the power to tax, Article 311 TFEU is silent on whether such power exists at the EU level. This contribution argues that the Union has the power to tax, provided that the chosen resources in the basket match the objectives and policies of the Union. Since the achievement of the internal market is a shared competence (Article 4 TFEU), the Union can decide the level of resources tailored to this goal. Although the Union has a broad power to tax under Article 311 TFEU to pursue its objectives and policies, the member states are still the “masters,” able to decide the level of resources under the unanimity rule. To resolve this paradox, this contribution embraces a democratic legitimacy of EU taxes that grant the European Parliament the power to decide the revenue side of the EU budget. EU democratic taxes approved by the European Parliament could reaffirm the redistributive function of taxes, thereby allowing the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135648191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alexander Hoppe, Lori Thorlakson, Johannes Müller Gómez
In the last decades, EU studies have increasingly broadened in terms of their theoretical and methodological approaches. By now, comparative concepts and theories are an integral part of studying the EU, which aids the study of its polity, politics, and policies. Despite the indisputable peculiarity of the EU as a political system, many scholars have stressed the value of using comparative approaches to study it. This thematic issue aims to investigate a specific case—the political system of Canada—as to its merit for comparison with the EU. While both systems have been described as sui generis in the past, forming a class of political system by themselves, recently the similarities between both have been stressed. This thematic issue gathers articles that compare different aspects of these two systems—focusing on polity, politics, and policy—to reap the benefits of the comparative approach and gain new insights into the functioning of both systems. The contributions to the thematic issue show the benefits that both Canadian political science and EU studies can gain from engaging in comparative exercises.
{"title":"Merits and Challenges of Comparing the EU and Canada","authors":"Alexander Hoppe, Lori Thorlakson, Johannes Müller Gómez","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.7569","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.7569","url":null,"abstract":"In the last decades, EU studies have increasingly broadened in terms of their theoretical and methodological approaches. By now, comparative concepts and theories are an integral part of studying the EU, which aids the study of its polity, politics, and policies. Despite the indisputable peculiarity of the EU as a political system, many scholars have stressed the value of using comparative approaches to study it. This thematic issue aims to investigate a specific case—the political system of Canada—as to its merit for comparison with the EU. While both systems have been described as sui generis in the past, forming a class of political system by themselves, recently the similarities between both have been stressed. This thematic issue gathers articles that compare different aspects of these two systems—focusing on polity, politics, and policy—to reap the benefits of the comparative approach and gain new insights into the functioning of both systems. The contributions to the thematic issue show the benefits that both Canadian political science and EU studies can gain from engaging in comparative exercises.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135538573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this article is to assess the merits of comparing the EU and Canada from a federal perspective. The point of departure is that both are federal-type entities that represent deviations from the standard or mainstream American model of federalism. That has given rise to alternative conceptions, multilevel governance for the EU, and a multinational federation for Canada. The article discusses the limitations of each such notion and instead argues for the merits of seeing both as different versions of multiheaded federation which is a useful analytical device for analyzing contestation over federalism within federal-type entities. This notion directs our attention to those with power and in the position to shape the political system’s federal-constitutional nature and design, which normally happens in the realm of constitutional politics. It is the fundamental struggle over sovereignty within a federal-type structure that gives rise to the notion of a multiheaded federation—there are multiple heads because there is no willingness to accept a hierarchical arrangement. The notion of a multiheaded federation is particularly suitable for capturing (de)federalisation processes and dynamics.
{"title":"Multiheaded Federations: The EU and Canada Compared","authors":"John Erik Fossum","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.6830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6830","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to assess the merits of comparing the EU and Canada from a federal perspective. The point of departure is that both are federal-type entities that represent deviations from the standard or mainstream American model of federalism. That has given rise to alternative conceptions, multilevel governance for the EU, and a multinational federation for Canada. The article discusses the limitations of each such notion and instead argues for the merits of seeing both as different versions of multiheaded federation which is a useful analytical device for analyzing contestation over federalism within federal-type entities. This notion directs our attention to those with power and in the position to shape the political system’s federal-constitutional nature and design, which normally happens in the realm of constitutional politics. It is the fundamental struggle over sovereignty within a federal-type structure that gives rise to the notion of a multiheaded federation—there are multiple heads because there is no willingness to accept a hierarchical arrangement. The notion of a multiheaded federation is particularly suitable for capturing (de)federalisation processes and dynamics.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135472715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, China has become an increasingly important actor in Arctic regional governance. While Beijing consistently frames its engagement in the region as a strategy of mutually-beneficial cooperation, some Arctic countries have raised significant concerns about its growing economic presence, warning that China may leverage its geopolitical influence to change the existing norms and rules in the polar region. Facing the mounting “China threat” skepticism, what are Beijing’s coping strategies to belie concerns? Based on a review of the existing research and government documents, particularly Chinese-language scholarly works and official reports, this article specifically identifies two types of costly signaling approaches employed by China to reduce Arctic countries’ distrust. First, China has started to curtail its Arctic investment in oil, gas, and mining while engaging more in sectors that chime well with Western societies’ global environmental values, including clean and renewable energy, ecological research that addresses further climatic change associated with global warming, and other environmentally sustainable industries. Second, Beijing has increasingly involved in regional international organizations, such as the Arctic Council, to signal its willingness to exercise state power under institutional constraints. These approaches aim to send a series of costly signals to conventional Arctic states, reassuring them that China is not a revisionist power that pursues hegemony in the region. Taken together, our findings have both scholarly and policymaking implications to understand China’s participation in Arctic regional governance.
{"title":"Costly Signaling and China's Strategic Engagement in Arctic Regional Governance","authors":"Yaohui Wang, Yanhong Ma","doi":"10.17645/pag.7222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7222","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, China has become an increasingly important actor in Arctic regional governance. While Beijing consistently frames its engagement in the region as a strategy of mutually-beneficial cooperation, some Arctic countries have raised significant concerns about its growing economic presence, warning that China may leverage its geopolitical influence to change the existing norms and rules in the polar region. Facing the mounting “China threat” skepticism, what are Beijing’s coping strategies to belie concerns? Based on a review of the existing research and government documents, particularly Chinese-language scholarly works and official reports, this article specifically identifies two types of costly signaling approaches employed by China to reduce Arctic countries’ distrust. First, China has started to curtail its Arctic investment in oil, gas, and mining while engaging more in sectors that chime well with Western societies’ global environmental values, including clean and renewable energy, ecological research that addresses further climatic change associated with global warming, and other environmentally sustainable industries. Second, Beijing has increasingly involved in regional international organizations, such as the Arctic Council, to signal its willingness to exercise state power under institutional constraints. These approaches aim to send a series of costly signals to conventional Arctic states, reassuring them that China is not a revisionist power that pursues hegemony in the region. Taken together, our findings have both scholarly and policymaking implications to understand China’s participation in Arctic regional governance.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135925243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Publics have traditionally been conceived as sites of social integration. While discord, controversy, and contestation may be acknowledged, theorising publics and especially public spheres are characteristically geared toward the production of consensus and/or the conditions of the possibility of unified decision-making. On this view, publics beyond the nation-state are reduced to conceptual extensions of the nation-state—The move to a higher level of aggregation, imagined as global or international, seems to make no conceptual difference. Against this, I propose to conceptualize publics as sites of the constitution of social struggles. To this end, I introduce Nancy Fraser’s concept of “subaltern counterpublics,” previously applied exclusively to national contexts, to the study of global politics. With a view to future empirical application, I discuss three promising sites for the further study of subaltern counterpublics in global politics: colonial public spheres, transnational social activism, and the circulation of extreme right-wing conspiracy tropes. Taken together, I conclude, these three sites of inquiry provide an important corrective to a statist concept of the public in which the place, purpose, and direction of publics are always already taken for granted.
{"title":"Subaltern Counterpublics in Global Politics","authors":"Benjamin Herborth","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.6792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6792","url":null,"abstract":"Publics have traditionally been conceived as sites of social integration. While discord, controversy, and contestation may be acknowledged, theorising publics and especially public spheres are characteristically geared toward the production of consensus and/or the conditions of the possibility of unified decision-making. On this view, publics beyond the nation-state are reduced to conceptual extensions of the nation-state—The move to a higher level of aggregation, imagined as global or international, seems to make no conceptual difference. Against this, I propose to conceptualize publics as sites of the constitution of social struggles. To this end, I introduce Nancy Fraser’s concept of “subaltern counterpublics,” previously applied exclusively to national contexts, to the study of global politics. With a view to future empirical application, I discuss three promising sites for the further study of subaltern counterpublics in global politics: colonial public spheres, transnational social activism, and the circulation of extreme right-wing conspiracy tropes. Taken together, I conclude, these three sites of inquiry provide an important corrective to a statist concept of the public in which the place, purpose, and direction of publics are always already taken for granted.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46303873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the role of European think tanks in public diplomacy efforts of the EU. It builds on Bourdieu’s field theory and concept of capital using data from EU official documents, website materials, and semi-structured interviews with representatives of think tanks from Brussels, France, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom, as well as their networks and the EU institutions. The article argues that EU institutions provide financial support for think tanks to obtain political capital in the form of internal and external legitimacy. The European Commission mobilises think tank academic capital by funding their educational activities, which helps to deal with the “democratic deficit” and plays the role of intellectual “soft power” by training current and future policymakers in Europe and beyond as potential allies in competition with other regions. Due to the particularity of the EU public sphere, characterised by the lack of outreach mass media, the European Commission tries to improve its capacity to shape public opinion at the European and global levels by using think tank publicity capital in its communication activities via new media platforms, distinguished by direct access to wider audiences. The European Commission benefits from think tank social capital, encouraging them to create transnational networks regarded as contributing to the promotion of integration within the EU, building relations with candidate countries, and strengthening its position in multilateral negotiations. Although the citizen’s dimension is not always at the core of practices of European think tanks, this article demonstrates their effectiveness as a channel of public diplomacy towards transnational publics.
{"title":"The Role of European Think Tanks as a Channel of the EU Public Diplomacy Towards Domestic and Foreign Publics","authors":"T. Bajenova","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.6837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6837","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the role of European think tanks in public diplomacy efforts of the EU. It builds on Bourdieu’s field theory and concept of capital using data from EU official documents, website materials, and semi-structured interviews with representatives of think tanks from Brussels, France, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom, as well as their networks and the EU institutions. The article argues that EU institutions provide financial support for think tanks to obtain political capital in the form of internal and external legitimacy. The European Commission mobilises think tank academic capital by funding their educational activities, which helps to deal with the “democratic deficit” and plays the role of intellectual “soft power” by training current and future policymakers in Europe and beyond as potential allies in competition with other regions. Due to the particularity of the EU public sphere, characterised by the lack of outreach mass media, the European Commission tries to improve its capacity to shape public opinion at the European and global levels by using think tank publicity capital in its communication activities via new media platforms, distinguished by direct access to wider audiences. The European Commission benefits from think tank social capital, encouraging them to create transnational networks regarded as contributing to the promotion of integration within the EU, building relations with candidate countries, and strengthening its position in multilateral negotiations. Although the citizen’s dimension is not always at the core of practices of European think tanks, this article demonstrates their effectiveness as a channel of public diplomacy towards transnational publics.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45746810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In IR and beyond, there is considerable debate about the ways global governance, the transnationalisation of publics, and changes in communication technologies have affected the interplay between publics and global politics. This debate is characterised by disagreements about how to conceptualise publics in the global realm—and whether or not they exist in the first place. We seek to contribute to this debate by disentangling the various meanings associated with publics in order to get a better grasp of how publics shape and are shaped by global politics. We do so in two steps. First, we distinguish four different manifestations of publics: audiences, spheres, institutions, and public interests. Second, we identify four key dynamics that affect the evolution and interplay of these manifestations in global politics: the distinction between public and private, changes in communications technologies, the politics of transparency, and the need to legitimise global governance. These interrelated dynamics reshape the publicness of global politics while sustaining the plurality of the publics that partake in it.
{"title":"Publics in Global Politics: A Framing Paper","authors":"Janne Mende, Thomas Müller","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.7417","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.7417","url":null,"abstract":"In IR and beyond, there is considerable debate about the ways global governance, the transnationalisation of publics, and changes in communication technologies have affected the interplay between publics and global politics. This debate is characterised by disagreements about how to conceptualise publics in the global realm—and whether or not they exist in the first place. We seek to contribute to this debate by disentangling the various meanings associated with publics in order to get a better grasp of how publics shape and are shaped by global politics. We do so in two steps. First, we distinguish four different manifestations of publics: audiences, spheres, institutions, and public interests. Second, we identify four key dynamics that affect the evolution and interplay of these manifestations in global politics: the distinction between public and private, changes in communications technologies, the politics of transparency, and the need to legitimise global governance. These interrelated dynamics reshape the publicness of global politics while sustaining the plurality of the publics that partake in it.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49662776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In December 2021, the European Commission proposed a directive creating five criteria for the presumed classification of platform economy workers as salaried employees. The issue is timely, of course, as the digital organisation of work continues to grow rapidly. Our article contrasts the merits and limitations of this initiative to the Canadian experience concerning so-called independent contractors in the platform economy. In fact, Canadian labour law has long recognised a third status of workers—dependent contractors. It permits collective bargaining, while platform workers remain autonomous, notably for tax purposes. Immediately, the striking similarities between the European Union’s five criteria and judicial tests applied by Canadian labour tribunals seem to indicate that both entities are moving in the same direction. However, the federal structure of labour law in Canada and the single market’s social dimension also pose important challenges regarding the uniform implementation of new protections. Based on recent fieldwork in Toronto, and as the European Union directive moves into the approval and implementation stages, our article addresses the research question of how basic labour rights in the platform economy progress similarly (or differently), and which actors are driving the change on each side of the Atlantic. We argue that this policy field provides labour market actors with opportunities for “institutional experimentation” navigating the openings and limitations of federalism.
{"title":"“Can You Complete Your Delivery?” Comparing Canadian and European Union Legal Statuses of Platform Workers","authors":"R. Gebert","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.6833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6833","url":null,"abstract":"In December 2021, the European Commission proposed a directive creating five criteria for the presumed classification of platform economy workers as salaried employees. The issue is timely, of course, as the digital organisation of work continues to grow rapidly. Our article contrasts the merits and limitations of this initiative to the Canadian experience concerning so-called independent contractors in the platform economy. In fact, Canadian labour law has long recognised a third status of workers—dependent contractors. It permits collective bargaining, while platform workers remain autonomous, notably for tax purposes. Immediately, the striking similarities between the European Union’s five criteria and judicial tests applied by Canadian labour tribunals seem to indicate that both entities are moving in the same direction. However, the federal structure of labour law in Canada and the single market’s social dimension also pose important challenges regarding the uniform implementation of new protections. Based on recent fieldwork in Toronto, and as the European Union directive moves into the approval and implementation stages, our article addresses the research question of how basic labour rights in the platform economy progress similarly (or differently), and which actors are driving the change on each side of the Atlantic. We argue that this policy field provides labour market actors with opportunities for “institutional experimentation” navigating the openings and limitations of federalism.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43533274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Student mobility constitutes a core pillar of higher education internationalisation. Reflecting wider global trends, Canada and the EU have increasingly prioritised equity and inclusion in their student mobility programmes. Canada’s Global Skills Opportunity programme, launched in 2021, provides federal funding specifically to low-income students, students with disabilities, and Indigenous students. The EU’s Erasmus Programme has a long-standing tradition of community-building through inclusive student mobility. This article traces the principle of inclusion as a mobility rationale and analyses the role of the federal government in Canada and the European Commission in the EU supporting it. Using a policy framing lens, this study compares problem definitions, policy rationales, and solutions for federal/supranational involvement in student mobility. Findings show that inclusiveness has been an underlying silent value, yet it has mostly supported larger political and economic goals in both contexts.
{"title":"Federal Servants of Inclusion? The Governance of Student Mobility in Canada and the EU","authors":"Alina Felder, Merli Tamtik","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.6815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6815","url":null,"abstract":"Student mobility constitutes a core pillar of higher education internationalisation. Reflecting wider global trends, Canada and the EU have increasingly prioritised equity and inclusion in their student mobility programmes. Canada’s Global Skills Opportunity programme, launched in 2021, provides federal funding specifically to low-income students, students with disabilities, and Indigenous students. The EU’s Erasmus Programme has a long-standing tradition of community-building through inclusive student mobility. This article traces the principle of inclusion as a mobility rationale and analyses the role of the federal government in Canada and the European Commission in the EU supporting it. Using a policy framing lens, this study compares problem definitions, policy rationales, and solutions for federal/supranational involvement in student mobility. Findings show that inclusiveness has been an underlying silent value, yet it has mostly supported larger political and economic goals in both contexts.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44753736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent comparative fiscal federalism work has noted how the US displays a mix of substantial federal capacity and no federal fiscal rules for sub-federal units as opposed to the EU’s mix of regulation and lack of capacity. The difference is explained by the lack of federal capacity in the EU case, which presumably creates a need for regulation. However, these studies are cross-sectional. This carries the obvious drawback of abstracting the actual political and historical processes that have given rise to the respective mixes of regulation and capacity in the two polities. In this article, I trace the historical process by which the specific mix of no rules and capacity became entrenched in the US in the second half of the 20th century and ask whether that political-economic history has any lessons for the EU today.
{"title":"Fiscal Rules and Federal Capacity in American Fiscal History: Lessons for Europe?","authors":"Christakis Georgiou","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i4.7230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i4.7230","url":null,"abstract":"Recent comparative fiscal federalism work has noted how the US displays a mix of substantial federal capacity and no federal fiscal rules for sub-federal units as opposed to the EU’s mix of regulation and lack of capacity. The difference is explained by the lack of federal capacity in the EU case, which presumably creates a need for regulation. However, these studies are cross-sectional. This carries the obvious drawback of abstracting the actual political and historical processes that have given rise to the respective mixes of regulation and capacity in the two polities. In this article, I trace the historical process by which the specific mix of no rules and capacity became entrenched in the US in the second half of the 20th century and ask whether that political-economic history has any lessons for the EU today.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41547778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：