Search

This paper explores the lessons drawn by German constitutional scholars from the breakdown of the Weimar Republic, and how this traumatic experience became a starting point at the end of the 1930s for a new conception of democracy both liberal and robust (or “defensive”). Emigré constitutional scholars devised three distinctive versions of this “democratic robustness”: an “anti-extremist” (which originated in Weimar legal antipositivism); a “militant democracy” (first exposed by Karl Loewenstein); and a “constitutional dictatorship” (Carl J. Friedrich, Frederick W. Watkins). At the heart of each one lies a decisive debate with Carl Schmitt, even if implicit or diffracted. By reconstructing these debates one can appreciate to what extent postwar constitutional democracies have incorporated Schmitt's ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract. The regionalization of public policy is one of the most remarkable transformations European states have undergone since the 1970s. Through an examination of this particular development, the article explores theories of interregional competition in two very different cases: education policy in France, a decentralized unitary state where regional governments are entrusted with limited policy competences in this field, and Germany, a federal state where regions have exclusive responsibility over secondary education. The paper shows that, in both cases, interregional competition lends itself neither to a race to the bottom nor a race to the top, but rather to a race to the middle. Regional governments aim, in fact, to demonstrate that they adopt similar policies to other regions so as to avoid being blamed by both the electorate and the central state. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]