Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:34:26.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Administrative Centralization and Decentralization in the Making and Remaking of Modern Germany*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Arthur B. Gunlicks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Centralization and decentralization have been applied in Germany not only to geographical relationships between levels of government and to hierarchical relationships within levels of government but also to hierarchical relationships between levels of government. American-style dual federalism is not a part of the German administrative tradition. Subnational units in Germany have traditionally been responsible for implementing the laws of larger units. With the creation of a German federal state in 1871, the Prussian system became in large part the German system of administration. Today there are five levels of administration in the Federal Republic, and strong parallels can be drawn to the earlier Prussian traditions. In spite of the institutional arrangements for decentralized administration and local self-government, there are complaints about the alleged lack of opportunities for popular participation and overcentralized decision-making. These complaints raise difficult questions concerning the requirements for national standards and equality on the one hand and local citizen demands on the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1984 , pp. 323 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Fesler, James W., “Centralization and Decentralization,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. by Sills, David L., vol. 2 (The Macmillan Company and Free Press, 1968), p. 370.Google Scholar

2 Ritter, Gerhard, Stein: Eine politische Biographie (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1958), pp. 188–90.Google Scholar

3 Heffter, Heinrich, Die deutsche Selbstverwaltung im 19. Jahrhundert, 2. Aufl. (Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler Verlag, 1969), p. 91.Google Scholar

4 Ibid.

5 Ritter, , Stein, pp. 260–62.Google Scholar

6 Huber, Ernst Rudolf, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789, band 1, 2. Aufl. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1967), p. 174.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Jacob, Herbert, German Administration since Bismarck: Central Authority vs. Local Autonomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), chap.2.Google Scholar

8 Heffter, , Selbstverwaltung, pp. 295–314.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., p. 331.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., pp. 554–55

12 von Unruh, George-Christoph, Der Kreis (Kö1n und Berlin: Grote'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964), pp. 173–75.Google Scholar

13 Heffter, , Selbstverwaltung, p. 603.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., pp. 697–704; 715–16.

15 Ibid., p. 719.

16 Wagener, Frido, Die Städte im Landkreis (Göttingen: Verlag Otto Selowarz and Co., 1955), p. 186.Google Scholar

17 Herzfeld, Hans, Demokratie und Selbstverwaltung in der Weimar Epoche (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1957), pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

18 Wells, Roger H., German Cities: A Study of Contemporary Municipal Politics and Administration (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1932), pp. 6–14.Google Scholar

19 Heffter, , Selbstverwaltung, pp. 769–71;Google Scholar Wells suggests that there may have been more state supervision after World War I than before, especially in matters of finance (Wells, , German Cities, p. 143Google Scholar).

20 Von Unruh, , Der Kreis, p. 178.Google Scholar

21 Matzerath, Horst, “Die Zeit des Nationalsozialismus,” in Püttner, Günter (Hrsg.), Handbuch der kommunalen Wissenschaft und Praxis, band 1, 2. Aufl. (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1981), p. 104.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., pp. 106, 111–12.

23 Von Unruh, , Der Kreis, pp. 193–94.Google Scholar

24 Rudzio, Wolfgang, Die Neuordnung des Kommunalwesens in der Britischen Zone (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1968), p. 43.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., pp. 43–45.

26 The term spatial or areal administration is used to distinguish the German and French administrative systems from the American and British functional systems.

27 Laux, Eberhard, “Verwaltung des ländlichen Raumes,” in König, Klaus, von Oertzen, H. J. and Wagener, Frido (Hrsg.), Öffentliche Verwaltung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1981), p. 169.Google Scholar

28 For a discussion of local decentralization, see Wiese, Rolf, “Systeme der Ortschaftsverfassung und der Bezirksgliederung,” in Püttner, , Handbuch der kommunalen Wissenschaft und Praxis, pp. 328–42.Google Scholar

29 For regional associations, see Meyer-Schickerath, Klaus, “Die höheren Gemeindenebände in Norddeutschland”Google Scholar and Witti, Joseph, “Die höheren Gemeindeverbände in Süddeutschland,”Google Scholar in ibid., pp. 452–73 and 432–51.

30 For a discussion of metropolitan associations, see Wagener, Frido, “Stadt-Umland-Verbände,”Google Scholar in ibid., pp. 413–30.

31 On intergovernmental cooperation at the local level, see Rengeling, Hans-Werner, “Forman interkommunaler Zusammenarbeit,”Google Scholar in ibid., pp. 385–412.

32 See also Johnson, Nevil, “Some Effects of Decentralization in the Federal Republic of Germany,” in Decentralist Trends in Western Democracies, ed. by Sharpe, L. J. (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979), pp. 248 and 253.Google Scholar