Policy-Making in Multi-Level Systems: Ideology, Authority, and Education

• Author: Hanna Kleider,Leonce Röth,Julian L. Garritzmann
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Date: 01 October 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0010414021997499
• Subject Matter: Articles

2021, Vol. 54(12) 2155 –2190

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414021997499

Comparative Political Studies

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0010414021997499

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

Article

Policy-Making in Multi-

Level Systems: Ideology,

Authority, and Education

Julian L. Garritzmann1, Leonce Röth2,

and Hanna Kleider3

Abstract

Most political systems consist of multiple layers. While this fact is

widely acknowledged, we know surprisingly little about its implications

for policy-making. Most comparative studies still focus exclusively on

the national level. We posit that both “methodological nationalism” and

“methodological subnationalism” should be avoided. We argue instead

that in multilevel systems national and subnational governments jointly

affect policy-making. Their respective influence is, however, conditional

on the distribution of policy authority. Moreover, we identify power

asymmetries, as subnational governments hardly affect policy-making in

centralized systems whereas national governments shape subnational

policy-making even in decentralized polities. Empirically, we study the case

of education policy. Novel data on regional education spending, regional

and national governments’ ideology, and regional authority over education

in 282 regions in 15 countries over 21 years reveals strong support for the

interplay between ideology and the distribution of authority across levels.

We conclude by sketching a resulting research agenda.

1Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany

2University of Cologne, Germany

3King’s College London, UK

Corresponding Author:

Julian L. Garritzmann, Goethe University Frankfurt, PEG Gebäude, Theodor-W.-Adorno Platz

6, Frankfurt am Main 60629, Germany.

Email: Garritzmann@soz.uni-frankfurt.de

997499CPSXXX10.1177/0010414021997499Comparative Political StudiesGarritzmann et al.

research-article2021

2156 Comparative Political Studies 54(12)

2 Comparative Political Studies 00(0)

Keywords

education policy, education politics and policy, social investment, regional

authority, subnational politics, party politics, decentralization

Introduction

Most democracies are multi-level systems: besides the national level, several

subnational—and sometimes supranational—levels exist. While the litera-

ture on territorial politics, decentralization, and federalism has established

this fact and started mapping patterns, as well as causes and consequences of

decentralization (for many: Alonso, 2012; Däubler et al., 2019; Hooghe et al.,

2016; Röth & Kaiser 2019; Toubeau & Wagner, 2015), we still know surpris-

ingly little about the politics of policy-making in complex multilevel sys-

tems. How do national and subnational policy-makers jointly shape

policies—and how do institutions affect this relationship? This paper contrib-

utes to this crucial political science question by theorizing on power asym-

metries between national and regional governments and by offering a first

broad comparative study of regional and national governments’ influence on

policy-making, conditional on patterns of authority. Empirically, we use the

crucial case of education policy.

In today’s knowledge economies, education policy is of utmost impor-

tance. Skills are the backbone of post-industrial knowledge-based econo-

mies: They contribute to economic growth (Barro, 2001), shape patterns of

(youth) unemployment (Breen, 2005), and form a defining characteristic of

countries’ variety of capitalism (Hall & Soskice, 2001). Moreover, education

is the most important determinant of upward mobility (Breen & Jonsson,

2005), it contributes to social cohesion (Green et al., 2006) and civic engage-

ment (Mettler, 2002), thereby strengthening democracies.

Education has become a central political cleavage in today’s societies

(Beramendi et al., 2015; Busemeyer et al., 2013; Stubager, 2010) and a core

field in political science (Busemeyer, 2015; Gift & Wibbels, 2014; Iversen &

Stephens, 2008). Political scientists have analyzed the causes and conse-

quences of education systems, focusing particularly on the role of parties and

other collective actors. Much comparative work has concentrated on educa-

tion expenditure as an element of education policy that can be systematically

compared across countries, contexts, and time (Ansell, 2010; Boix, 1997;

Busemeyer, 2015; Castles, 1989; Garritzmann, 2016; Garritzmann & Seng,

2016; Iversen & Stephens, 2008; Jensen, 2011; Schmidt, 2007). Expenditure

is but one element of education policy, but it is a central one not only because

it is a proxy for countries’ commitment to education; we also know that

spending causally affects student outcomes (Jackson, 2018).

Garritzmann et al. 2157

Garritzmann et al. 3

Existing comparative work has always analyzed education policy at the

national level. But often education policy is not decided by national govern-

ments, as authority frequently lies with subnational levels: In fact, education

policy is the core competence of many subnational governments.

Consequently, the pitfalls of “methodological nationalism” (Jeffery &

Schakel, 2013) are widely present in comparative studies on education pol-

icy, putting doubt on some existing findings since authority is wrongly attrib-

uted to the national level.

We argue that in order to obtain a better understanding of policy-making

in multi-level governance systems (in education or other areas), we need to

take institutions seriously and study policy-making at the governmental level

that holds authority over the respective policy. As we will show, for education

policy this is in many cases regional governments (e.g., US States, German

Länder, Swiss Kantone). We argue, though, that it would be equally mislead-

ing to replace methodological nationalism with “methodological subnation-

alism” because national governments remain relevant even in decentralized

settings. We theorize that and why power asymmetries exist, as national gov-

ernments can influence regional policy-making even in cases where they lack

formal authority whereas regional governments cannot affect policy-making

in centralized arenas. In short, the interaction between ideological stand-

points of regional and national governments with their respective degrees of

policy authority is crucial.

Exemplarily using the critical case of education, this article more gener-

ally contributes to a better understanding of policy-making in multi-level

systems. To the best of our knowledge, we offer the first broad comparative

study of regional and national governments’ influence on regional public

policy-making and on conditioning institutional effects. The arguments

easily travel to other policy areas, both (re-)distributive ones (e.g., health

care or pensions) as well as regulatory ones (e.g., law-and-order or environ-

mental policies).

Empirically, we collected novel data on regional per capita public educa-

tion spending in 282 regions in 15 OECD countries over two decades (1990–

2010). For a subset of 132 regions we can moreover analyze spending

disaggregated by educational sectors, which allows exploring different dis-

tributive dynamics in different educational sectors.

Our second empirical contribution is that we gathered data on regional

governments’ partisan composition and measured their ideological positions.

This data could easily be used in many other ways and helps to enhance

scholarship on subnational party politics and policy-making.

As a third novel feature we developed—using qualitative literature and

expert interviews—a measure of regional governments’ authority over