Excerpt
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Regions in the Network of "New Governance"
1.1. Policy Networks
1.2. Regions in the context of globalisation and europeanisation
1.3. Governing in networks: Towards a "New Governance"?
2. The Role of the Regional Office
2.1. The historic reasons and evolution of Regional Offices
2.2. The "Early-Warning-Function"
2.2.1. A European human resources strategy by the regions?
2.2.2. The Baden-Württemberg approach: A "dynamic pool"
2.2.3. The "early-warning-function" as a service-centre?
2.3. The Platform-Function
2.3.1. How to build a platform?
2.3.2. Presenting a coalition of interests
2.3.3. A trans-national coalition of interests?
3. Two Case-Studies
3.1. Case Studies and the Baden-Württemberg Network
3.1.1. Case Studies on regional influence
3.1.2. The Baden-Württemberg Network
3.1.3. Conditions for two appropriate cases
3.2. Early Warning: The Commission Proposal on Public Transport
3.2.1. The Proposal on Public Transport
3.2.2. The Proposal seen from the regional office
3.2.3. Analysing and Comparing: The Academic view vs. the Practitioners Experience
3.3. Platform: The 4-Motors seminar on women in rural space
3.3.1. An Institutionalised Network: The Four Motors
3.3.2. The Seminar on Women in Rural Space
3.3.3. Analysing the seminar
4. Analysing the regional performance in Brussels
4.1. The European strategy
4.2. Implications of the Network-Approach
Conclusion
Bibliography
Academic Literature
Articles (Journals and Reviews)
Written Sources
Interviews
Introduction
The process* of European integration leads to a transformation of governance, visible in the different treaty revisions, but occurring more clearly through changes on the institutional level. One of the main features of this transformation is the growing importance of the regional level in European policy-making, with both Europe more involved into matters falling under regional competence and the regions playing a greater role in decision-making on the European level[1].
Some scholars have labelled these changes as "New Governance". They see the adaptations made by local and regional administrations to deal with the European Institutions ("europeanisation") as coinciding with a complete transformation of the conception of democracy. No longer is the question of power linked to a territorial legitimacy, but rather to a functional legitimacy, thus questioning the fundamental public order in Western Europe[2].
To come to such an evaluation, the evolution of regionalism has to be taken into account, considering the factors that brought about the change of governance. At the same time, the actual "state of the art" must be thoroughly analysed before assessing the term "New Governance".
Evolving from a rather resistant movement, regionalism occurred first in relation to economic restructuring, and is now one of the driving forces behind the emerging multi-level governance[3]. Two main factors lie behind the emergence of regional power on the supranational level. On the one hand, the economic change lead to "globalisation". This mainly has consequences on the economic and local development policies of the regions. As the nation-state is only one amongst other actors on the European scene, having lost his monopoly of action on the international scene, a re-emergence of regional economic politics and a competition amongst the regions occur. The outcome of this evolution is fragmentation, referred to as "Multi-level governance" (MLG)[4].
This evolution towards the interaction of different levels represented the growing importance of European Integration for the regions. Their main interest in Europe in the 1980s was access to the structural and cohesion funds. With the completion of the Single Market and the move towards EMU, regions now face new challenges on the European level[5]. In reaction to these challenges, one could speak of "europeanisation" of the regions[6].
If the new regionalism is not contained by the borders of the nation-state, nevertheless a variety of different national approaches to these new challenges exist. The results of the economic modernisation of a region are shaped by the specific factors that define a region, and one major factor being national tradition. The regions have to find new ways to equilibrate the tension between the global logic of capital, seeking the most profitable locations, and the constraints of territory. In these new ways, interaction with the European level, especially the Commission, becomes crucial. Thus, spatial development becomes more important than ever. However, to solve this question, new approaches are needed, including the much wider participation of social actors in order to profit form the bringing together of the resources of different regional institutions[7].
Within the variety of ways to adopt to the new challenges, one can find more or less typical structures for every region. Administrative traditions, but also the outcome of regional identity and the relationship between the citizens and their regions, are factors in shaping these structures[8].
One model for the organisation of the three levels is the German case. During the negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty, the regions fought for formal representation in the European game; the compromise that was found - integration of the regions via the second chamber (Bundesrat) with consultation in federal competencies, definitive decisions in mixed competencies and the possibility to send a regional representative to the Council of Minister meetings when it deals with exclusive Länder -competencies - must still prove its effectiveness. While some authors consider the regulation of 1993 as favorable for the regions[9], others, mainly practitioners, contest this view[10].
In any case, it transpired that national representation on its own would - given the above-mentioned challenges of globalisation and European integration - not be enough. A second channel of influence, still most effective when working closely together with the national, institutionalised channel of influence, are the regional representations that were opened in Brussels from the mid-80s onwards. They try to close the gap between the system of representation through classical means and decision-making as a process whis is happening more and more in territorial and societal networks[11]
From an academic point of view, these representations are a very interesting case. They fulfil a new role, unforsen in classical patterns of administration. Their role is twofold, acting on the one hand as an interface between their regional capitals and Brussels, channeling the input of multiple actors of the regional society into the Commission-procedure. On the other hand, they are themselves actors in the diverse networks woven around the Commission.
The challenge is to understand their specific role in the decision-making process. This would allow, from a practitioner’s point of view, a more appropriate and effective organisation of the regional representations. From a theoretical point of view, one could come to a better understanding of a new model of decision-making and governance. In using network-analysis as a tool for understanding the role of the Brussels representations, the result could be an insight into the strategies, means, tools and routes that have an impact on influence within the network and, finally, in the decision-making process[12].
Realising this aim implies an investigation into several areas. First of all, the constraints of time and space necessitate a concentration on one regional representation. The case of Baden-Württemberg is not only interesting for practical reasons, but also because of its role as a leader on the way to an "Europe of the Regions". Baden-Württemberg was among the first regions to open an information bureau in Brussels and then to transform it into a regional representation. As an economically strong region, it profits less from the structural and cohesion funds and is therefore more interested in finding new and progressive ways of promoting its interests in Brussels. At the same time, the second mentioned point of identity and tradition speaks in favour for Baden-Württemberg. Within the European context, the German regions (Länder) have been able to develop, because of their position as state-actors within the federal framework, a complex administrative and distinct political culture. An identification of the citizens with their region can thus be assumed[13].
In focussing on Baden-Württemberg, the first chapter will consider the theoretical implications of a network-analysis and the transformation of governance. The existence and definition of policy-networks must be clarified, in order to better understand their role within the decision-making process. In linking them to the processes of globalisation and europeanisation, it must be questioned if this necessarily leads to a transformation of the political order into a system of "New Governance".
This leads to the second's chapter consideration of the special role of the regional representation as an interface between the domestic and the Brussels game. The role of the regional civil servants working in Brussels as "boundary managers"[14] must be investigated. The paper will distinguish their task between one of "Early-Warning" and one of "Platform-Building", in order to present the region as a state actor on the European scene. State actor is understood as having an institutionalised involvement into decision-making processes and possessing a legitimacy that emanates from a public vote. Within the early-warning function, several innovative measures (leading to "europeanisation"?) are taken into account. In the chapter on platform building, the possibilities of acting in trans-national coalitions as an innovative way of acting in Europe are considered.
Within this framework, a case study concerning two concrete areas of action by a regional representation is introduced in chapter three, giving an insight and an empirical example of "new governance" at work. One case deals with the Early Warning function of the regional office, the second case presents a trans-national network in action.
Finally, by analysing chapters one to three, an assessment of the regional representation illustrates the difference between efficient and less efficient regional interventions on the European stage. While this fourth chapter also theorises the European strategy of the region, the paper also leads to some practical findings.
1. Regions in the Network of "New Governance"
With the completion of the Single European Act in 1985 and the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the old dispute between intergovernmental and neofunctional approachs to studying European Integration have proved to be increasingly obsolete.
To understand the European Union, a new, differentiated approach was needed and new tools had to be found to analyse its decision-making processes. Decision-making power could be observed as being increasingly shared on different levels of sub-national, national and supranational institutions[15]. In this "Multi-Level Governance", the different levels were interacting and communicating their respective resources to come to decisions. To better understand these interactions and interdependencies between the different levels of government, a tool appropriate to explain the links between the different actors - at the origin of an outcome - was needed.
In concentrating on the ability of the Commission to take integrative measures against the preferences of national governments, Gary Marks points to the importance of actors within the different sets of institutions. Based on this consideration of institutions as a static set of rules and norms and the individuals as decisive (actor-centred approach), perhaps the best tool to understand this constellation is network-analysis[16]. If the actors are the only ones able of a goal-oriented action, than the examination of their activities should constitute the crucial link between the macro processes and the institutional rules[17].
1.1. Policy Networks
The literature on networks covers many academic disciplines. Already in the 1970s, the concept of policy networks was influenced by neo-corporatist attitudes. In relation with the study of EU, David Marsh and Rod Rhodes wrote some of the main academic works on the topic[18]. According to these authors, Policy Networks describe the interaction between a set of resource-dependent organisations, the basic relationship being one of resource exchange, further strengthened by frequent interaction and shared policy values[19].
Rhodes observes five aspects to building a framework within which to explore the linkages between the actors: constellation of interests, membership, vertical and horizontal interdependence and the distribution of resources[20]. He than defines a continuum ranging from the highly integrated policy communities to the loosely integrated issue networks. Between the two extremes, different manifestations of networks can be found, e.g. professional networks, intergovernmental networks or producer networks[21].
At one end of the spectrum, policy communities are characterised by the stability of the relationship, the maintenance of a highly restrictive membership, a vertical interdependence due to the common responsibility to deliver services, and finally the isolation from other networks. They contain a high degree of vertical interdependence and limited horizontal articulation. By contrast, on the other end of the spectrum, issue networks are characterised by the large number of participants and a limited degree of interdependence[22].
Within these networks, it is crucial to understand the dependency of the different actors on each other. The extent to which an organisation can control and mobilise its resources (financial, informational, political, organisational, constitutional - legal), determines its power in a given situation, when the other actors of the network depend on these resources. They are thus the key variable shaping the policy outcome. Whilst Rhodes sees a process of bargaining between conflicting interests[23], it is arguable that sharing resources can also be used strategically to form an alliance before starting a bargain.
However, the network approach has certain explanatory limits. It is an essentially descriptive theoretical tool, which analyses facts and evidence. It stresses the increasing importance of the sub-national level and its multiple connections with other levels and facilitates the understanding of a volatile perception of power: power is no longer stable, but situational. Power that was enjoyed at one time need not be available under different conditions.
Policy Network Analysis is thus a meso-level concept, which can only be part of an explanation of decision-making and policy-outcome. It is a tool for analysing the policy process and interest-group intermediation[24].
However, one of the main problems of policy network analysis as a tool is its concentration on the participants, and not on the influence of the participants on the outcome of a decision-making process[25]. Therefore, the concept is of little predictive value, although perhaps with some exceptions: resource dependence, and therefore policy network interaction, is high, when the policy sector is characterised by the institutional fragmentation of multi level governance. When the Commission needs differentiated information and expertise before giving a proposal, interest groups, local and regional governments come into the game[26].
There exists therefore a possibility for civil society to be linked and involved in the decision-making process. At the same time, the fragmentation of decision-making power that can be observed is due to a double, apparently paradox, evolution.
1.2. Regions in the context of globalisation and europeanisation
If one considers networks as an alternative way of expressing the constantly ongoing architecture of society, this equates, not only to "new", but also "complexity"[27]: turning from a rather defensive movement towards a strategy of economic modernisation in the 1980s, the 1990s saw regionalism in Europe evolving into a movement fostering constitutional change and transformation of the state, causing thus a much more complex society. No longer do only hierarchical regulations matter, but they are increasingly replaced by horizontal negotiations[28].
The causes of this evolution must be seen in a changing role of the nation state, as well as of the European and international environment. With the Single Market program followed by the ratification of the Maastricht-Treaty in the early 90s, the state itself was being transformed, with power and authority in classical terms eroded by advance, on the one hand (from "above") of the market, on the other hand (from "below") by civil society. The regions found themselves in competition with other regions in the EU as well as in the global market[29].
The outcome that can be observed by now is highly complex: the regions are no longer contained and protected by the nation state. But even for the most innovative and forward-looking regions, the old question of territory is still salient, as economic restructuring relies on specific combinations of factors in specific places. It depends on these combinations if regions are able to tie down some of the global capital that seeks for the most profitable locations, and thus the question of spatial development is more important than ever before[30].
The main driving force behind the new regionalism can therefore be found in the functional dynamic of economic restructuring. The two main elements that brought about the importance of economic forces for public policy is, firstly, europeanisation and the changing perception of the nation state, and, secondly, as a result of the former, but also as a more global phenomenon, the new economic order or globalisation, exposing the regions to an enhanced concurrence. Globalisation understood as a growing interaction across and without consideration of frontiers has to be countered by the functional differentiation of government[31].
It is thus these influences from the exterior that put an end to the link between political responsibility and limited territory. Whereas the nation-state was closed on itself, the regions act according to a more co-operative logic, favouring an interdependent approach to politics[32].
To deal with this new environment, the regions need to activate their local synergies, which implies an active policy-stance and a complex network of public-private interactions[33]. They are seeking supplementary support to the European aid they receive already via the national level, by activating their social society and dealing directly with the Brussels level of decision-making[34].
This complex network can only work in an active civil society. To be caplable of common action, a region needs some form of collective identity. Identity may be conceptualised as patterns of social exchange and patterns of territorial exchange, meaning a social, economic and political set of interacting links. Identity builds on these processes and reinforces them at the same time. A completely cosmopolitanised region would thus lack the reason for being together: the new challenge is therefore to allow regions the integration in the European and global order without losing their identities[35].
If Europe has a destabilising effect on the territorial distribution of power and thus is pressuring the nation state, the regions are perhaps better armed to penetrate the European decision-making process than one may think. Because of their closeness to the civil society they are networks of power. They are in the centre of functional interdependencies that are much more adapted to the Brussels way of decision-making, than the hierarchical administration of the nation state[36].
Networks as a way of policy-making would therefore be advantageous and rather "natural" for the regions by activating their civil society, but also in corresponding to a way of "governing" much closer to the non-hierarchical structures of the markets than hierarchical regulation and therefore more appropriate to the new economic order of globalisation.
In adopting this way of governing, regions could free themselves from simply being reactive, and play a much more pro-active role in the European Union. To return to the beginning of this chapter, the completion of the process of constitutional change would thus allow the regions to become real actors on the European scene, arguably one of the most significant changes to the European Union in the last years. This change can be closely observed in the Brussels representations of the regions, as the second and third part of this paper will show.
1.3. Governing in networks: Towards a "New Governance"?
So far, this paper has considered networks as consisting of more or less stable, non-hierarchical and interdependent relationships, allowing exchanges between a variety of actors, each of whom holds specific resources the other actors are keen to benefit from. The actors share resources to pursue a common interest. Indeed, this approach could be subsumed under the label of "interest intermediation school" and would apply to all kinds of relations between public and private actors, based on non-hierarchical co-ordination, as opposed to hierarchy or market as two distinct models of governance[37].
Another approach, the "governance school" takes into account networks not only as working and existing on one level and between public and private actors, but also characterised by a distinct relationship between public actors, especially the European Commission and its multiple inputs. According to this interpretation, networks describe a mechanism that brings together widely dispersed resources from public and private actors[38].
Rather than a mere tool, policy networks in this optic would be a model to explain structural relationships between policy actors and thus provide an insight in decision-making processes that cannot be explained by a hierarchical, structured policy action. The attention is much more focused on the interaction of many separate, but interdependent organisations and the co-ordination of their interests through a network[39].
Both the German "Max-Planck-School" and the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research have conceived policy networks as a particular form of governance in modern political systems[40]. Their basic assumption starts from the differentiation of modern society, leading to partly autonomous subsystems. In more practical terms, this corresponds to the evolution evoked in 1.1. towards europeanisation and globalisation[41].
The governments depend increasingly on the resources of civil society. The way to maximise the use of these resources would be to link them in joint networks, even when this implies that the government looses part of its control over the whole process. In this changed relationship between state and society, networks do not necessarily serve for decision-making purposes, but provide a basis for the development of common knowledge, experience and value orientation. From this perspective, networks can counterbalance power asymmetries in providing additional channels of influence.
Key player in this evolution has been - next to the regions - the Commission, especially at key moments during the 1988 and 1993 reforms of the Structural Funds. The latter was particularly important in bringing about new principles and procedures in regional policy. The aim was a better implication of the sub-national actors in the formulation and realisation phase of structural development projects. The regional development that was (and is) needed is going further than a "classical" approach in economic development. On the contrary, the most important investments seem to be those trying to ameliorate the qualifications, the ability of innovation, networking, language and cultural skills of the citizens[42].
With the completion of the Single Market, it became clear that only a far reaching activation of the civil society and the potential of the regions could assure economic and social cohesion. Analysed in this way, it is also clear that the dream of some sub-national entities to build a "Europe of the Regions" could at best mean a "Europe with the Regions". The nation states remain as important as before in this logic; while the regions only looked for additional support from the European level[43].
The principles which express this thinking are specifically "partnership", meaning an association of the resources of sub-national actors, public as well as private; "additionallity", thus keeping the link between sub-national actor and national level, and "programming", ensuring a structured perspective in these development visions[44].
The actors, especially the regions, do not choose these concepts and procedures without reflection. Under the influence of, as suggested above, europeanisation and the challenge of the global market, they have to adapt their policy-making to get the best use of all of their resources - so as to make sure not to be overwhelmed by their concurrent regions[45]. A repli sur soi no longer being possible, the regions have to accept their embeddedness in the European and worldwide markets and have to compete to ameliorate their attractiveness for investors[46].
So far, these observations concern "output-legitimacy", meaning a model of governance that is concentrated on the most effective way of arranging and exploiting resources to adapt to the new circumstances of a global environment. This definition of governance is concentrated on controlling action or processing units that involve a multiplicity of actors. It seems less important to control a certain territory - what would correspond to the traditional aspiration of the national state - but the important thing seems the controlling of certain of these processing units[47].
By the same token, this is the danger of the network approach. The character of informality that is inherent in these networks is arguably responsible for the lack of legitimacy and public control. They cannot, therefore, substitute formal institutions. As there is no longer the relation between territory, power and legitimacy, the question of "input-legitimacy" in a network-governance must thus be raised. Whereas European Integration is for the moment still primarily a functional process, and therefore centred on its output-legitimacy, democracy in the traditional understanding is centred on the constitutional model of the nation state[48]. As such, the functional orientation of the European Union lacks a democratic and discursive feedback to understand the outcome of decisions in the multi-level framework. The importance of efficiency and market-approach must therefore be countered by new models of input-legitimacy[49].
If input-legitimacy could be ensured, the network approach would, on the other side, allow an even deeper participation of multiple actors in decision-making processes. One possible scenario could be that the regions leave their reactive attitude behind and become active players in the European game, as their close link with the citizens and civil society would ensure enhanced democratic participation. To act actively under the conditions of a tougher competition, they must intensify their links with all public and private actors within the regional sphere. One side-effect of the process of globalisation is a new definition of "competitiveness"; meaning not only "hard" locational factors, costs and benefits, but also "soft" factors, such as advantages in the quality of a possible location. It is these soft competitive advantages that can be shaped by a regional policy and through networking with all relevant actors[50]. Through the opening of new channels in the Brussels game, these actors can, from the regional perspective participate directly in the European Union decision-making process[51].
The information offices or regional representations constitute a key position in this strategy. They are not only the dominant information and transmission channels for multiple regional actors, but are also the proof of the existence of regions in Brussels: via this "shop-window", the regions can demonstrate their capacity to provide the necessary services to every actor in their domain. Regional offices can thus support regional governments in their strategy to win back some of their authority and their ability to act on the European level[52].
2. The Role of the Regional Office
The success of a regional "European Policy" seems to depend increasingly on the ability of the region to connect and concentrate its interests. The building of networks between public, semi-public and private actors, and their sustainable implementation on a regional level, is therefore crucial and decisive for the success of the European strategy of a region[53].
As well as this network-governance can be seen as a third way of decision-making between hierarchy and market, a rather new way to co-ordinate and animate networks lies between the classical, still hierarchic administration and the free market in the semi-public institutions, like the Steinbeis -foundation in Baden-Württemberg[54].
The institutional design of these semi-public offices hint at how a regional office could be organised successfully in Brussels. A rather small staff realises hard information exchange as well as delivering a platform to present and communicate new techniques, products and processes. Their low hierarchy and flexible organisation allows them to react and to act in a efficient and fast way, very close to their clients.
Of course, there is much more to a regional office in Brussels than the knowledge transfer aspect. The above comparison gives onnly one hint concerning the structure of the information bureau (now regional representation): it has to act between a classical, hierarchical administration at home and a more market-like environment in Brussels[55]. Therefore, it is a platform and an interface where the multiple channels of information and exchange between Brussels and Stuttgart should come together. In this respect, the office is not an institution of the classical administration, but is much more concerned in delivering services, and must therefore (with a producer-client-relationship) be close to a market-approach. This point is further developed in chapter 2.2.3. and 3.2.
2.1. The historic reasons and evolution of Regional Offices
In looking for the reasons that lead to the establishment of regional representations in Brussels, once again the Single European Act is a significant actor. Firstly, the Commission’s program did not seek to make a difference between national or regional competencies. Administration and legislation in fields that were completely reserved to Länder authority came under pressure from Brussels. Secondly, and under the reformed regional policy of the Commission perhaps crucially important for Baden-Württemberg: to realise projects in the framework of regional policy, under the competition of Objective 1 regions, a much broader investment by the regional actors in order to reach a desired outcome was needed.
The reaction of the German sub-national entities was twofold: they tried to use the internal reforms of the federal - regional relation, due to German reunification, to secure and to formalise their input into EU decision-making domestically[56]. As the consent of the Bundesrat was needed for the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the Länder had a bargaining tool vis-à-vis the central state and managed to change the domestic procedure. Consequently, the Basic Law was changed in Art. 23, and the Länder were given an enhanced participation in the council sessions (working groups, observer).
[...]
* For all the notes, the date in brackets following the author gives the abbreviated quotation.
[1] More recently: Beate Kohler-Koch (1996b): "Catching up with change: the transformation of governance in the European Union", in: Journal of European Public Policy 3:3 (1996), Michael Keating (1998b): "Territorial Politics in Europe - A Zero-Sum Game? - The New Regionalism. Territorial Competition and Political Restructuring in Western Europe", in: EUI Working Paper RSC No. 98 / 39 (1998), see also: Francisco Aldecoa, Michael Keating (ed.) (1999): Special issue on "Paradiplomacy in Action - The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments", Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 9 (Spring 1999), No. 1.
[2] This theme has been developed by Beate Kohler-Koch and the Mannheim Centre of European Social Research. Details in the text, ch. 1.3.
[3] Michael Keating (1998a): The New Regionalism in Western Europe. Territorial Restructuring and Political Change. Cheltenham (UK) / Northampton, MA (US): Edward Elgar Publisher, p. 71.
[4] Elizabeth Bomberg, John Peterson (1999): Decision-Making in the European Union, London: Macmillan Press for a contemporary debate. On regions and MLG: Arthur Benz and Burkard Eberlein (1998): "Regions in European Governance: The Logic of Multi-Level Interaction", EUI Working Paper RSC No. 98 / 31 (1998). For the concept of MLG: Garry Marks (1993): "Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC" pp. 391 -. 410 in: A. Cafruny and G. Rosenthal (eds.) (1993): The State of the European Community - II: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond. Harlow: Longman 1993. G. Marks (1996): "An Actor-Centred approach to Multi-Level-Governance", in: Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 6 No. 2 (1996), pp. 20 - 38. Fritz W. Scharpf (1994): "Community and Autonomy: Multi-Level Policy-Making in the European Union", in: Journal of European Public Policy 1:2 (autumn 1994), pp. 219 - 242.
[5] Keating 1998a: 73.
[6] Klaus H. Goetz (ed.) (2000): Special issue on "Europeanised Politics? European Integration and National Political Systems", in: West European Politics Vol. 23 (Oct. 2000) No. 4.
[7] Keating 1998a: Introduction
[8] Beate Kohler-Koch (e.a., eds.) (1998b): Interaktive Politik in Europa – Regionen im Netzwerk der Integration. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Especially the chapters of Jürgen Grote and Michèle Knodt investigate this point (see chapter three of the thesis for further references).
[9] M. Keating 1998: 167.
[10] Charlie Jeffery: "Farewell the Third Level? The German Länder and the European Policy Process", in: Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 6 No. 2 (1996), pp. 56 - 76; Ulla Kalbfleisch-Kottsieper (1993): “Fortentwicklungen des Föderalismus in Europa - vom Provinzialismus zur stabilen politischen Perspektive? Ein Beitrag zur Rolle der Länder, Regionen und Autonomen Gemeinschaften bei den EG-Regierungskonferenzen und der Ratifizierung des Maastrichter Vertrags” in: Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 46, 13, 541-551; Interview Head of Baden-Württemberg Bureau, 7.03.2001.
[11] M. Keating 1998: 75.
[12] Helena Josefson (1998-99): The Logic of Lobbying. The Policy Network Approach and Influence on the EU Renewable Energy Policy. Bruges: Masterthesis (supervisor: R. Hrbek), p. 77.
[13] See nevertheless the image campaign of Baden-Württemberg, centred especially on the regional population.
[14] A term that was brought up by Brigid Laffan in a discussion on "europeanisation" of national administrations and the COREPER, College of Europe, 25.04.2001.
[15] Marks 1993 and Marks 1996, Ian Bache (1998): The Politics of European Union Regional Policy - Multi-Level Governance or Flexible Gatekeeping? Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, p. 22.
[16] Bache 1998: 26 gives an overview about Marks’ theory.
[17] Marks 1996: 22 - 23.
[18] Ian Bache, Stephen George; Rod A.W. Rhodes (1996): "Policy Networks and Policy Making in the European Union: A Critical Appraisal", pp. 367 - 387 in: Liesbet Hooghe (ed.) (1996): Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, refers to all the relevant literature on the topic. For example: Grant Jordan and Klaus Schubert (1992): "A preliminary ordering of policy networks"; Frans van Waarden (1992): "Dimensions and types of policy networks"; David Marsh and Rod A. W. Rhodes (1992): "New directions in the study of policy networks", all in: European Journal of Political Research 21 (1992).
[19] Rhodes / Bache / George in Hooghe 1996: 370.
[20] Rhodes 1998: 77-78, Bache 1998: 26.
[21] Bache 1998: 26.
[22] ibid., Rhodes in Hooghe 1996: 368.
[23] Bache 1998: 27.
[24] Rhodes in Hooghe 1996: 370
[25] ibid., p. 372.
[26] ibid., p. 383.
[27] Tanja Börzel (1997): "What’s So Special about Policy Networks? - An Exploration of the Concept and Its Usefulness in Studying European Governance", in: European Integration Online Papers (EIOP) Vol. 1, No. 16 (1997), p. 1.
[28] Keating 1998a: 71.
[29] Keating 1998a: 71-73.
[30] ibid., 73.
[31] Franz Greß (2000a): "Stärkung der Handlungsfähigkeit der Länder durch regionale Netze und Koalitionen? Anmerkungen zum Gebrauch des Netzwerkkonzepts", in: Rudolf Hrbek (ed.) (2000a): Europapolitik und Bundesstaatsprinzip - Die "Europafähigkeit" Deutschlands und seiner Länder im Vergleich mit anderen Föderalstaaten, Schriftenreihe des Europäischen Zentrums für Föderalismusforschung 17, Baden-Baden: Nomos, p. 81; Beate Kohler-Koch (1998a): "Territorial Politics in Europe - A Zero-Sum Game? - La renaissance de la dimension territoriale en Europe: entre illusion et réalité" in: EUI Working Paper RSC No. 98/38 (1998), p. 1-3.
[32] Kohler-Koch 1998a: 3.
[33] Keating 1998a: 80-81.
[34] Kohler-Koch 1998a: 12
[35] Keating 1998a: 153.
[36] ibid., 127 - 129.
[37] Börzel 1997: 1.
[38] ibid., 2, 4.
[39] ibid., 4.
[40] Renate Maynts, Fritz Scharpf, Volker Schneider, Edgar Grande for Max Planck, Beate Kohler-Koch, Markus Jachtenfuchs, Michèle Knodt for Mannheim.
[41] Börzel 1997: 5.
[42] Deutsch-Französisches Institut (DFI) (1999): Ergebnisse des Kolloquiums im Rahmen der interregionalen Kooperation der "4 Motoren für Europa" zum Thema "Regionale Identitäten, Nationalstaat und Europa", 6 - 8 October 1999, p. 3; http://www.dfi.de/4motoren.htm, checked 30.03.01.
[43] Kohler-Koch 1998a: 12
[44] Kohler-Koch 1998a: 4-6; Liesbet Hooghe (1996): "Building a Europe with the Regions: The Changing Role of the European Commission", p. 102 in: Hooghe 1996. Ingeborg Tömmel (1998): "Transformation of Governance: The European Commission's Strategy for Creating a 'Europe of the Regions'", in: Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 8 (summer 1998), No. 2, pp. 52 - 79.
[45] Kohler-Koch 1998a: 8,9.
[46] DFI 1999: 2
[47] Greß in Hrbek 2000a: 82. Patrick Kenis / Volker Schneider (1991): "Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox", in: Bernd Marin / Renate Mayntz (eds.): Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, Frankfurt am Main / Boulder 1991, p. 25.
[48] Greß in Hrbek 2000a: 84.
[49] Roland Sturm (2000a): "Die Zukunft des Bundesstaates in der Dynamik europäischer Integration. Ein Beitrag aus politikwissenschaftlicher Perspektive", in: Hrbek 2000a: 195.
[50] DFI 1999: 2.
[51] Kohler-Koch 1998a: 16.
[52] Kohler-Koch 1998a: 16.
[53] DFI 1999: 5.
[54] DFI 1999: 5.
[55] Michael Morass (1994): Regionale Interessen auf dem Weg in die Europäische Union. Strukturelle Entwicklung und Perspektiven der Interessenvermittlung österreichischer und deutscher Landesakteure im Rahmen der Europäischen Integration. (Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Föderalismusforschung 60) Wien: Universitätsverlag, 148.
[56] Charlie Jeffery (1996b): "Regional Information Offices in Brussels and Multi-Level Governance in the EU: A UK-German Comparison", in: Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 6 (1996) No. 2, pp. 183 - 203. See on the more recent evolutions of the approach of British local authorities: Peter John and Mark McAteer (1998): "Sub-national Institutions and the New European Governance: UK Local Authority Lobbying Strategies for the IGC", in: Regional and Federal Studies Vol. 8 (autumn 1998) No. 3, pp. 104 - 124.