Search

Text in englischer, Abstracts in englischer und deutscher Sprache, In federal states, intergovernmental councils were the main institutions through which the federal government and the constituent units coordinated their responses to COVID-19. To examine whether peak councils assumed a leading role during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure cross-sectoral as well as intergovernmental coordination, this article compares the role of two “peak councils”—the Conference of Premiers (MPK) in Germany and the Conference of Cantonal Governments (KdK) in Switzerland—with sectoral councils in normal times and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis relies on an original database of more than 900 council outputs based on which we compare the level of activity, the publicity, the direction of action, and the bindingness of outputs. The findings show that MPK took a leading role during the pandemic, a role that was indeed unusual when compared to normal times, while KdK, which likewise does not play a leading role in normal times, did not during the pandemic either. Im Umgang föderaler Staaten mit der COVID-19-Pandemie spielten intergouvernementale Regierungskonferenzen eine zentrale Rolle. Anhand des Vergleichs der deutschen Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz (MPK) und der schweizerischen Konferenz der Kantonsregierungen (KdK) mit den politikfeldspezifischen Minister- beziehungsweise Direktorenkonferenzen untersucht dieser Beitrag, inwiefern die MPK und die KdK während der COVID-19-Pandemie eine herausragende Rolle einnahmen, um so sowohl sektorenübergreifende Koordination als auch die Zusammenarbeit der Regierungsebenen sicherzustellen. Anhand eines eigens erhobenen Datensatzes von mehr als 900 Beschlüssen und Pressemitteilungen werden Aktivität, Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Ausrichtung und die politische Bindungswirkung der Beschlüsse einer vergleichenden Analyse unterzogen. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass der MPK während der Pandemie in der Tat eine zentrale, vom Normalmodus abweichende Bedeutung zukam. Innerhalb des schweizerischen Konferenzgefüges nahm di

Conditional grant programs are widely used in federal systems to address the tension between decentralized policy provision and territorial equity, given constraints on constituent units' ability to raise revenues. While enhancing their financial capacity, conditional grants are often seen as reducing constituent units' policy autonomy. Against this backdrop, this article examines the actual impact conditional grants have on the capacity and autonomy of a constituent unit. We analyze key milestones in the genesis and evolution of conditional grant programs in education and healthcare in Australia, Canada, and the United States. We find that the impact of conditional grants primarily depends on constituent units' size, fiscal capacity, and distinctiveness. Conditional grants are most beneficial to smaller and/or fiscally weaker constituent units but highly distinctive units suffer the most significant autonomy losses. If they are not to exacerbate centralization, conditional grants programs thus need to be sensitive to the preferences of the more distinctive constituent units.

In multilevel systems, (at least) two orders of government are responsible for crisis management. It is essential to understand how these systems deal with a major crisis such as COVID-19. Based on a review of the literature on crisis management in federal and other multilevel systems, this contribution discusses the advantages and disadvantages of decentralisation and intergovernmental coordination when it comes to the management of external shocks., En los sistemas multinivel, (al menos) dos órdenes de gobierno son responsables de la gestión de las crisis. Resulta esencial comprender cómo afrontan estos sistemas una crisis de gran envergadura como la de COVID-19. A partir de una revisión de la literatura sobre la gestión de crisis en sistemas federales y otros sistemas multinivel, este texto analiza las ventajas y desventajas de la descentralización y la coordinación intergubernamental cuando se trata de la gestión de choques externos.

Erworben im Rahmen der Schweizer Nationallizenzen (http://www.nationallizenzen.ch), The COVID-19 pandemic required prompt action from governments all over the world. In federal systems, it can be important or beneficial to coordinate crisis management between the various governments. The extent to which intergovernmental coordination occurred and the form it took (vertical or horizontal) varied across countries and regarding the measures taken. By examining the introduction and the subsequent easing of containment measures and the procurement of medical supplies in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, this article identifies the circumstances under which intergovernmental coordination occurs. Surprisingly, the existence of strong intergovernmental councils did not lead to closer intergovernmental coordination. Governments coordinated more intensively when jurisdiction was shared, problem pressure was high, and measures were(re-)distributive in nature. Vertical coordination was more likely when vertical intergovernmental councils existed and powers were shared.

In federal states, intergovernmental councils were the main institutions through which the federal government and the constituent units coordinated their responses to COVID-19. To examine whether peak councils assumed a leading role during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure cross-sectoral as well as intergovernmental coordination, this article compares the role of two "peak councils" - the Conference of Premiers (MPK) in Germany and the Conference of Cantonal Governments (KdK) in Switzerland - with sectoral councils in normal times and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis relies on an original database of more than 900 council outputs based on which we compare the level of activity, the publicity, the direction of action, and the bindingness of outputs. The findings show that MPK took a leading role during the pandemic, a role that was indeed unusual when compared to normal times, while KdK, which likewise does not play a leading role in normal times, did not during the pandemic either., Im Umgang föderaler Staaten mit der COVID-19-Pandemie spielten intergouvernementale Regierungskonferenzen eine zentrale Rolle. Anhand des Vergleichs der deutschen Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz (MPK) und der schweizerischen Konferenz der Kantonsregierungen (KdK) mit den politikfeldspezifischen Minister- beziehungsweise Direktorenkonferenzen untersucht dieser Beitrag, inwiefern die MPK und die KdK während der COVID-19-Pandemie eine herausragende Rolle einnahmen, um so sowohl sektorenübergreifende Koordination als auch die Zusammenarbeit der Regierungsebenen sicherzustellen. Anhand eines eigens erhobenen Datensatzes von mehr als 900 Beschlüssen und Pressemitteilungen werden Aktivität, Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Ausrichtung und die politische Bindungswirkung der Beschlüsse einer vergleichenden Analyse unterzogen. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass der MPK während der Pandemie in der Tat eine zentrale, vom Normalmodus abweichende Bedeutung zukam. Innerhalb des schweizerischen Konferenzgefüges nahm die KdK hingegen keine herausgehobene Stellung ein - weder im Normalmodus noch zu Krisenzeiten.