Abstract
This chapter examines whether French and German regional governments have any capacity to autonomously devise their policies, or whether formal institutions are heavily circumscribing their policymaking. After all, in both countries, the central state has proudly acclaimed its role as a guardian of territorial equality, or the “equivalence of living conditions” in the German parlance. The chapter engages with formal institutions-based literature, which notes that both French and German regional governments have little capacity for autonomous policymaking. This literature points at the absence of regional normative power and the central state’s governing at a distance in France; and at the strong entanglement of the regional and federal governments’ policy responsibilities in Germany. Despite all predictions to the contrary, and in line with recent research on German federalism, the chapter shows that in both cases, central states have been absent guardians of territorial equality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The regional authority index proposes a summary measure on decentralization and devolution, the scope of public policy responsibilities, fiscal autonomy, borrowing ability, and the political representation of regions, as well as their participation via intergovernmental bodies in national decisions, national legislation, and fiscal, constitutional, and borrowing decisions (Hooghe et al., 2016). By way of comparison, the score of French regions is 10, that of English regions in 5, Scotland is scored 20.5, Wales, 15.5, autonomous Spanish communities, 23.5, and the German Länder, 27.
- 2.
The budgetary transfer system consists of revenue sharing from certain taxes, starting with the VAT, between the Bund and the Länder. It also consists of a horizontal redistribution between regions, the objective being to equalize regions’ effective fiscal capacities (Länderfinanzausgleich). This zero-sum game (there are contributing regions and beneficiary regions) has highly significant redistributive effects: all the regions reach a fiscal per capita capacity that is at least equal to 95% of the federal average. The last level of this system establishes a vertical redistribution from the federal government towards certain regions (Bundesergänzungenzuweizungen) (Burkhart et al., 2008; Guihery, 2001).
- 3.
Over the previous period of decentralization, regular publications from the ministry’s studies and statistical service, like Tableaux de l’Education nationale or Informations statistiques, mainly included data describing policy inputs and their distribution in schools (budgetary data, teaching staff by size and service, number of buildings by educational cycle). They also delved into the school population by type of school building and by school, as well as by exam results. Only data describing the average classroom size according to school cycles in different schools appears as information on educational policy outputs. A few other data on regional policy outputs were gathered by the Minister of National Education for occasional studies, and not as part of routine data collection systems. We could find only two issues of the “Etudes et documents” series of publications from the central statistical and forecasting service of the Ministry of National Education that focus in one way or another on school policy outputs or presenting data on this topic (Ministère de l’Education nationale, 1968, 1971). These documents are mined in the following paragraphs.
- 4.
In the académie of Lille, Nancy, and Toulouse.
- 5.
In the académie of Aix, Montpellier, and Nantes.
- 6.
This was the case in Brittany, Languedoc-Roussillon, Midi-Pyrénées, Provence-Alps Côte d’Azur, and in the Ile de France regions’ schools.
- 7.
This was the case in Alsace, Lower Normandy, Champagne, Upper Normandy, Pays de la Loire, and Picardy.
- 8.
This was the case in Alsace, Lower Normandy, Burgundy, Centre, Champagne, Upper Normandy, Lorraine, Nord, Pays de la Loire, Picardy, and Poitou-Charentes.
- 9.
This could be observed in Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Midi-Pyrénées, Provence-Alps Côte d’Azur, Ile de France, and Rhône-Alps.
- 10.
For 1986, state yearly grants (DGD and DRES) provide an approximation of average State spending by high school student for school building investment and operations.
- 11.
School enrolment was long the main data gathered by the Ministry of National Education and its predecessors (Briand & Chapoulie, 1979; Pons, 2008). This data was then gradually diversified to also cover teaching staff, the number of classes, pedagogical conditions, that is, the average number of students per class, and the number of buildings, as well as prepared and obtained degrees. This observation results from a detailed analysis of publications from the statistical service of the Ministry of National Education, specifically the Tableaux de l’Education nationale, Informations statistiques, and Statistiques des enseignements, tableaux, et informations. These three sources have various publication dates spanning the period studied in this chapter.
- 12.
We can trace it back to the French Revolution (Ozouf, 1984). School equality was conceived as being based on the abstraction of individual characteristics, linked to “local”, familial, and ethno-cultural particularisms. But, until World War I, this equal opportunity objective was effectively subordinated to the promotion and concretization of national integration (Morel, 2002). It is only later that the issue of school equality received greater political attention. This took the form of a gradual questioning of the organization of education in disjointed cycles, inherited from measures dating to the 3rd Republic, when attendance was socially highly differentiated.
- 13.
Alongside the establishment of ZEPs, the beginning of the 1980s also saw the implementation of urban policies, some of which included an educational component.
- 14.
While the Ministry of National Education’s publications did not anticipate that the implementation of the ministry’s centralized policy might result in the production of territorial divergence, it appears that scholars largely thought so. In the introduction to a research report conducted on behalf of the ministries of Education and Research on the socio-spatial inequalities of education, Sylvain Broccolichi, Choukri Ben-Ayed, and Danièle Trancart underscored that it is only since the 1980s that research in the sociology of education, the educational sciences, and political science, have focused on the spatial dimension and on territorial dynamics (2006).
- 15.
It can be explained, on the one hand, by the deteriorating economic context, wherein training might mitigate unemployment (Prost, 1992) and, on the other hand, by the initiative of Minister of National Education Jean-Pierre Chevènement in 1985 to aim for 80% of a cohort to reach the baccalaureate level.
- 16.
The Ministry of Agriculture, which had authority over agricultural high schools, was also concerned by the transfer of high schools to regions. This was also the case of the Ministry of Equipment and Transportation in charge of maritime schools. We focus on the transfers concerning schools under the authority of the Ministry of National Education.
- 17.
In 1985, academic councils for national education (CAEN) were established to organize cooperation between state actors and collectivities. They were equally composed of collectivity representatives, school staff, and users. But the councils did not actually fulfil their duties. Elected officials “had the impression of only being seen as “cash cows”, and user representatives “as extras”” (Van Zanten, 2006b, p. 202).
- 18.
Quote from Pierre Joxe’s letter to the president of ANER of 18 March 1985, taken from the ANER president’s letter to Joxe of 9 April 1985. Archives from the regional council of Centre, box 3797.
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Letter from the ANER president to Pierre Joxe, dated 9 April 1985. Archives from the regional council of Centre, box 3797.
- 21.
Some regions drew on the services of the subnational state services equipment (DDE) or the technical services of big cities to prepare these decentralization reports.
- 22.
In 1985, the regional councils mobilized via ANER to include a need-based criterion in the definition of state yearly grants dedicated to regional investment expenditures (DRES). Finally, in 1995, the regions collectively mobilized around funding the implementation of norms on asbestos removal in school buildings. This is explored in Chap. 4.
- 23.
This mobilization mainly involved bringing the teaching material used in professional sections—the machine tools—up to safety standards. As a result of the transposition of a European directive, the regions had a very short time frame to take stock, in each high school, of machines and tools that needed to be brought up to standard, and to bring them up to standard or acquire new equipment. This constituted a first cause for mobilization. The magnitude of the costs involved in bringing them up to standard was a second cause. The collective mobilization of regions organized around the notion of “new charges” that were not compensated by additional grants. We will go over this in greater detail. As part of this mobilization, regions requested exceptional grants to cover these costs.
- 24.
Archives of the regional council of Centre, box 317 W 118, “Plans d’urgence de 1990 à 1993” (Emergency plans from 1990 to 1993).
- 25.
Survey of the Federation of mayors of mid-sized cities, “Participation financière des Régions et des Départements pour la mise à disposition d’équipements sportifs en villes moyennes aux lycées et collèges” (Financial participation of regions and departments in the provision of sports equipment to high schools and middle schools in mid-sized cities), February 1996, p. 7. Archives of Centre’s regional council, box 330 W 15118.
- 26.
Archives of Brittany’s regional council, box 569 W 7.
- 27.
Proceedings of the working group organized by the Ministry of Youth and Sports addressing safety, the environment, and the clarification of responsibilities, gathered on 21 November 1997. Several decrees, adopted in the mid-1990s, covered safety on sports fields. We note the decrees of 10 August 1994 and of 18 December 1996 “setting safety requirements and prescriptions for collective play areas” and the decree of 4 June 1996 “on the safety requirements for goal nets for soccer, handball, field and indoor hockey and basketball hoops which require owners to regularly maintain the equipment, to draw a plan specifying the schedule for verification and maintenance visits, and keep a record of the dates and results of the checks” (CCEC, 1999: 110–111).
- 28.
Archives of Brittany’s regional council, box 569 W 7.
- 29.
APCR meeting proceedings, 12 November 1997. Archives of Brittany’s regional council, box 559 W 7. The sentence is bolded in the original version of the document.
- 30.
Letter of 1st December 1997. Archives of Brittany’s regional council, box 569 W 7.
- 31.
Alongside this legal resource, the APCR also underscored that regions gradually, and on their own initiative, supplied the equipment needed for sports education: they built the needed facilities in high schools, renovated existing equipment, and helped fund municipal and inter-communal equipment. Furthermore, it also emphasized that high schools reached use agreements with the local governments, and that regions increased the allocations provided to high schools to address this additional charge
- 32.
Archives of Brittany’s regional council, box 569 W 7.
- 33.
“The equipment is used in accordance with the provisions of article L.1311–7 of the General code of subnational governments except in cases where free use agreements were negotiated” (article 40 III). The quoted article from the General Code for subnational governments specifies that “The use of collective equipment by a subnational government, a public institution for inter-communal cooperation, or a joint union, is provided with a financial contribution benefiting the subnational government, the public establishment of inter-communal cooperation, and the joint union that owns this equipment. (…) The methods for calculating this contribution are defined by the agreements. […] If the agreement is not signed after one year of equipment use, the owner determines the amount of this financial contribution, which becomes a mandatory outlay for the user”.
- 34.
We were fortunate to find the results of this survey in the archives of the Centre’s regional council. Box 330 W 15117.
- 35.
These reports are available online.
- 36.
Computer-assisted manufacturing corresponds to certain courses taught in high schools’ scientific and technological sections.
- 37.
Some theorized that regional councils’ hiring of former staff from the Ministry of National Education led to the replication, under the regional banner, of State policies (Hatzfeld, 1991). But the nature of the positions occupied within the Ministry of National Education by the first educational officials hired by the regional councils suggests that this analysis is inaccurate. The academic inspectors, academic delegates for continuous training, and information and guidance centre directors did not have the same responsibilities as those of regional councils beginning in 1986. Staff from the Ministry of National Education did not bring expertise on the particular responsibilities entrusted to regions, so much as internal knowledge of the general functioning of rectorat services and of the Ministry of National Education more generally.
- 38.
To account for this, the senior civil servants interviewed by Agnès Van Zanten brought up another explanation that is partially congruent with the one that we propose: the “[…] stance of passive and sometimes active resistance vis-à-vis territorial decentralization [which] explains that a national coordination body never existed between central State representatives in the area of education and elected officials, nor did […] information-gathering and evaluation processes enabling an overview of the activity of subnational governments” (Van Zanten, 2006b, pp. 200–201).
- 39.
This database virtually exhaustively gathers the DEPP’s publications, regardless of the successive names given to the directorate responsible for studies, construction, and the collection of statistical data within the ministry.
- 40.
Indeed, the introduction of the first issues of Geography of School indicates an objective of “[…] describing, gathering, and comparing the main regional and academic principals of our educational system. The regions, most often corresponding to the jurisdictions of schools, appear as a relevant level of study, since the decision-making level pertaining to the responsibility of a provost with regard to State action, or of a regional council with regard to responsibilities devolved to territorial collectivities” (Ministère de l’Education nationale, 1993, p. 3).
- 41.
And, therefore, having detailed knowledge of what data was or was not produced by the ministry’s services.
- 42.
We thus found clippings from Economic Alternatives, The World and The World of Education.
- 43.
The office also benefited from the internship of a Master’s student to gather information on the determinants of regions’ educational spending (Jardin, 2008).
- 44.
The framework plan did not challenge the segmentation of the school system, and notably proposed the introduction of orientation classes (in grades 5 and 6), the transformation of the last grades of Volksschule into a Hauptschule enrolling students through 9th and 10th grades, and the extension of enrolment in Realschule until 11th grade.
- 45.
This measure was adopted over the opposition of some of the regions, which rejected the idea of the federal State and regions reaching joint agreements within the commission for education. These regions argued that they alone had responsibility for policymaking in education.
- 46.
The KMK consists of the Plenum, which brought together the ministries of education of 11, and then 16 regions, and where important decisions are taken. Each region has a vote. The State secretaries and principal senior officials meet within the Conference of administrative leaders. The latter “takes decisions in circumstances where the Plenum does not exclusively do so, or in areas where it does not have jurisdiction” (quoted by Reiter-Mayer, 2005, p. 167). The decisions of the Plenum and of the Amtschefkonferenz are generally prepared by the committees that constitute the KMK . There are five: the committee for school, for universities, for the equivalent of university institutes for technology (Fachhochschulen), for German universities abroad, and for art and adult training. The committee for school (Schulausschuss) is the most important of these. Decisions are taken by a simple majority in the committees. Work discussions within the committees are confidential. The KMK’s operations are based on a permanent secretariat entrusted with technical coordination tasks. Decisions concerning its staff are taken by a two-thirds majority. Finally, the KMK is represented by a president selected among regions’ ministers of education according to the principle of a rotating presidency. The president has a primus inter pares status, but, in effect, has an important spokesperson and institutional representation role (Raschert, 1980; Reiter-Mayer, 2005).
- 47.
All the translations from German are ours.
- 48.
Picht criticized the fact that students’ enrolment in the different types of school so directly reflected the social position of their parents.
- 49.
In 1963, the KMK published a first projection of educational needs focusing on demand for schools and universities through the 1970s, and proposing on this basis an estimate of corresponding needs in terms of funding and staff: “This is the first document that presents an attempt to plan long-term school developments across Germany” (Raschert, 1980, p. 111).
- 50.
The purported point of these two years is to enable the reorientation of students into another type of school if their aptitudes were underestimated or overestimated at the end of the Grundschule. The principle of orientation classes is, therefore, to facilitate the transition from one type of school to another.
- 51.
Their introduction was halfway there in 1968. Preparatory classes (Eingangstufen) were introduced in the first two grades of Gymnasium and Realschule, as were support classes (Förderstufen) in the Volksschulen (which did not take the Hauptschulen label).
- 52.
In 1945 the Grundschule was extended by two years, with students attending from grades 1 to 6. The introduction of observation classes was, therefore, not an issue, since Berlin’s system already took a step further by enrolling all students from grades 5 and 6 in a same school.
- 53.
The BLK is organized in three levels. It is headed by the Commission itself, which consists of regional and federal ministers and secretaries of education, the federal Minister of Finances, and other federal ministers (seven are represented in total). The Commission’s decisions are prepared within committees (the committee for the general educational plan, the committee for the educational budget, the committee for research support, and the committee for educational innovation). The regional ministries of finance are not represented in the commission, but until 1985 they participated in the BLK’s work through the committee for the educational budget. These committees are composed of relevant directors of regional and federal administrations for education and research. Finally, the detailed work on all the issues in the BLK’s remit is conducted in working groups, in which deputy directors and office managers of relevant regional and federal ministries participate. Each of the 11 regions has a vote, while the federal government has 11, which it can only use once. Each decision is taken with a ¾ majority, or 17 votes, which corresponds to the vote of the Bund added to those of the majority of regions. The formal opportunity to express a minority’s opposition exists. The Commission just provides recommendations. Only the heads of regional governments and the Bund can take binding decisions. In this case, the latter only has one vote because it is only represented by the Chancellor. Here again, decisions are taken with a ¾ majority. Decisions made in this framework are only binding for the heads of government that pass them. To prepare its plans, the BLK must coordinate with other institutions, particularly the conference of regional ministers of finance and the Finanzplanungsrat. Furthermore, the preparation and implementation of BLK decisions depend on decision-making processes in the respective cabinets and parliaments of the regions and of the Bund (Leschinsky, 2003; Mäding, 1989; Raschert, 1980).
- 54.
It is entitled Inanspruchnahme von Länderzuständigkeiten durch den Bund und die Bildungsplanungskommission im Rahmen der Tätigkeit der Bund-Länder-Bildungsplanungskommission, 28 January 1972. Quoted by (Mäding, 1989: 123, footnote no. 20).
- 55.
This explains the failure of the second Plan of the German educational Council. After the publication in 1970 of its structural Plan, it continued its work, but ended up partly competing with the BLK , and its capacities for work were limited because it consisted of volunteers. The second version of the Council revisited what had been problematic in the development of the structural Plan, that is, either peripheral or highly controversial areas. But the disagreement was very strong between the two bodies composing the educational commission and the governmental commission. Representatives of regional governments, including those led by the parties of the federal majority—the SPD and FDP—criticized the Commission for Education for insufficiently considering the implementation and financing of the proposed measures. Financial issues thus directly contributed to the failure of the second Plan of the 1975 Council for Education, which did not offer any actual recommendation but rather presented minimal position taking. This resulted in the dissolution of the Council for Education that year. The dissolution sealed the failure of a means of action for the Bund to attempt to influence the development of regional school systems.
- 56.
Meanwhile, the budgetary aspect of the General Plan for Education, the Budgetary Plan for Education (Bildungsbudgetplan) was not adopted since the regional ministers of finance were not able to reach an agreement. The framework plan was adopted despite the opposition of “parties of education” and “parties of finance”, because the federal government agreed to increase the share of tax resources allocated to regions (the share of the VAT). This led regional ministers of finance to accept the plan’s ambitious objectives (6.8% of GDP for education) and to negotiate with the federal government a redistribution of tax resources to their benefit (Mäding, 1989, p. 125).
- 57.
This can be explained by considering the positions of some regional governments, particularly those in which the FDP was a member (Fränz & Schulz-Hardt, 1998).
- 58.
In 1982, the Bund published a report on the state of councils on progress of the Bildungsgesamtplan. The BLK decided to stop drafting the second plan at this time. Thus, a clear erosion of attempts to plan at the national level is observable at the beginning of the 1980s (Furck, 1998; Leschinsky, 2003; Mäding, 1994).
- 59.
The federal government called for an increase in the number of apprenticeships and the opening of universities to all. He also redirected points that had already guided his action: gender equality at school, support for children of immigrant descent, and the introduction of scholarships to support studies in higher education (Bafög). The government introduced a few new points, like support for gifted students and the strengthening of continuous professional training. But these elements do not point to a change in the federal government’s policy after 1982 (Anweiler, 2005b).
- 60.
As illustrated in an article signed by Helmut Kohl that was published in March 1992 in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung entitled “Educational policy for Germany”, as well as the publication in 1993 of a Federal government report on the means to secure the future of Germany.
References
Anweiler, O. (2005a). Bildungspolitik. In Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales und Bundesarchiv & G. Schulz (Eds.), Geschichte der Sozialpolitik in Deutschland seit 1945. Band 3: Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949–1957, Bewältigung der Kriegsfolgen, Rückkehr zur sozialpolitischen Normalität (pp. 653–686). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Anweiler, O. (2005b). Bildungspolitik. In Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und soziale Sicherung und Bundesarchiv (Éd.), Geschichte der Sozialpolitik in Deutschland seit 1945. Band 7: Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1982–1989. Finanzielle Konsolidierung und institutionelle Reform (pp. 565–600). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Anweiler, O. (2006). Bildungspolitik. In Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales und Bundesarchiv & H. G. Hockerts, Geschichte der Sozialpolitik in Deutschland seit 1945. Band 5: Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1966–1974, Eine Zeit vielfältigen Aufbruchs (pp. 709–753). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Anweiler, O. (2007). Bildungspolitik. In Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales und Bundesarchiv & G. Ritter, Geschichte der Sozialpolitik in Deutschand seit 1945. Band 11: Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1989–1994, Sozialpolitik in Zeiten der Vereinigung (pp. 861–900). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Anweiler, O., & Geyer, M. H. (2008). Bildungspolitik. In Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1974–1982 (pp. 693–731). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Benz, A. (1999). From Unitary to Asymmetric Federalism in Germany: Taking Stock After 50 Years. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29(4), 55–78.
Benz, A. (2001). De l’Etat fédéral unitaire à un Etat assymétrique. In A.-M. Le Gloannec (Éd.), L’Etat en Allemagne. La République fédérale après la réunification (pp. 87–109). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Bolleyer, N. (2018). Challenges of Interdependence and Coordination in Federal Systems. In K. Detterbeck & E. Hepburn (Eds.), Handbook of Territorial Politics. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Borredon, A. (1995). Une jeunesse dans la crise. Les nouveaux acteurs lycéens. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1964). Les héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1970). La reproduction. Éléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Briand, J.-P., & Chapoulie, J.-M. (1979). Les statistiques scolaires comme représentation et comme activité. Revue Française de Sociologie, 20(4), 669–702.
Broccolichi, S., Ben-Ayed, C., & Trancart, D. (2006). Les inégalités socio-spatiales d’éducation. Processus ségrégatifs, capital social et politiques territoriales (Rapport pour le ministère de l’Educaiton nantionale, le ministère de la Recherche et la DATAR). Paris.
Bundestag, D. (1967). Bericht über den Stand der Massnahmen auf dem Gebiet der Bildungsplanung. Bonn: Bonner Universitäts-Drückerei.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft. (1970). Bildungsbericht 70′. Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Bildungspolitik. Bonn: Verlag Dr Heger.
Bund-Länder Kommission für Bildungsplanung and Forschungsförderung. (1973). Bildungsgesamtplan. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.
Burkhart, S., Manow, P., & Ziblatt, D. (2008). A More Efficient and Accountable Federalism? An Analysis of the Consequences of Germany’s 2006 Constitutional Reform. German Politics, 17(4), 522–540.
Commission consultative sur l’évaluation des charges au Parlement. (1999). Bilan de l’évolution et de la compensation des charges transférées ou confiées aux collectivités territoriales. Direction générale des collectivités territoriales, Paris: Copies La Boëtie.
Cour des comptes. (1995). La décentralisation et l’enseignement du second degré. Rapport au Président de la République suivi des réponses des administrations et des collectivités. Paris: Imprimerie des journaux officiels.
Crozier, M., & Thoenig, J.-C. (1975). La régulation des systèmes organisés complexes. Le cas du système de décision politico-administratif local en France. Revue Française de Sociologie, 16(1), 3–32.
Dahrendorf, R. (1965). Bildung ist Bürgerrecht. Plädoyer für eine aktive Bildungspolitik. Hamburg: Nannen.
Derouet, J.-L. (1992). Ecole et justice. De l’égalité des chances aux compromis locaux. Paris: Ed. Métailié.
Desrosières, A. (2000). La politique des grands nombres. Histoire de la raison statistique. Paris: La Découverte.
Detterbeck, K., & Jeffery, C. (2009). Rediscovering the Region: Territorial Politics and Party Organizations in Germany. In W. Swenden & B. Maddens (Eds.), Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe (pp. 63–85). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Deutscher Bildungsrat. (1968). Die Gliederung des deutschen Schulwesens. Analytische Darstellung und Geschichtspunkte zu seiner weiteren Entwicklung, Gutachten und Studien der Bildungskommission. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.
Deutscher Bundestag. (1978). Bericht der Bundesregierung über die strukturellen Probleme des föderativen Bildungssystems.
Direction générale des collectivités territoriales. (1987). Les finances des régions. Paris: Ministère de l’Intérieur, Service des statistiques, des études et des techniques locales.
Duclaud-Williams, R. (1985). Local Politics in Centralized Systems: The Case of French Education. European Journal of Political Research, 13(2), 167–182.
Duclaud-Williams, R. (1988). Policy Implementation in the French Public Bureaucracy. West European Politics, 11(1), 81–101.
Dupuy, C., & Pollard, J. (2014). A Dethroned King? The Limits of State Infrastructural Power in France. Public Administration, 92(4), 359–374.
Duran, P., & Thoenig, J.-C. (1996). L’Etat et la gestion publique territoriale. Revue française de science politique, 46(4), 580–622.
Durand-Prinborgne, C. (1979). Le recours à la déconcentration au ministère de l’éducation. Revue française d’administration publique, 12, 809–824.
Epstein, R. (2013). La rénovation urbaine. Démolition-reconstruction de l’Etat. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Erk, J. (2003). Federal Germany and its Non-Federal Society: Emergence of an All-German Educational Policy in a System of Exclusive Provincial Jurisdiction. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 295–317.
Ferhat, I. (2007). « Le parti socialiste et le monde enseignant des années 1960 à l’éclatement de la FEN : une relation spéciale ». Recherche socialiste, 41, 33–42.
Fränz, P., & Schulz-Hardt, J. (1998). Zur Geschichte der KMK 1948–1998. In Sekretariat der KMK (Éd.), Einheit in der Vielfalt. 50 Jahre KMK, 1948–1998 (pp. 177–227). Neuwied u.a.: Luchterhand.
Führ, C. (1998). Zur Koordination der Bildungspolitik durch Bund and Länder. In C. Führ & C.-L. Furck (Eds.), Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte. Band VI–1945 bis zur Gegenwart, Erster Teilband: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 68–86). München: C.H. Beck.
Furck, C.-L. (1998). Grund- und Rahmenbedingungen. In Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte: Band VI–1945 bis zur Gegenwart, Erster Teilband: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 27–34). München: C.H. Beck.
Glasman, D. (2001). Des ZEP aux REP. Pratiques et politiques. Toulouse: SEDRAP Université.
Grémion, P. (1978). Le pouvoir périphérique. Bureaucrates et notables dans le système politique français. Paris: Seuil.
Guihery, L. (2001). An Economic Assessment of German Fiscal Equalization Schemes since 1970 – What Prospects for a Unified Germany. Public Finance and Management, 1(4), 393–419.
Hatzfeld, H. (1991). La décentralisation du système éducatif : les régions à l’épreuve. Politiques et management public, 9(4), 23–49.
Hesse, K. (1962). Der unitarische Bundesstaat. Karlsruhe: Verlag C.F. Müller.
Hooghe, L., Marks, G., Schakel, A., Chapman Osterkatz, S., Niedzwiecki, S., & Shair-Rosenfield, S. (2016). A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance. Volume I: Measuring Regional Authority. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Inspection générale de l’administration de l’Education nationale. (1985a). Deuxième note relative aux observations effectuées par l’inspection générale de l’administration sur la mise en oeuvre de la décentralisation du système éducatif. Présentée par Jean-Claude Salomon et Claude Guillerme. Paris: Centre de documentation des Inspections générales, Dossier 7682.
Inspection générale de l’administration de l’Education nationale. (1985b). Note relative aux premières observations effectuées par l’IGA sur la mise en oeuvre de la décentralisation du service éducatif. Présentée par Jean-Claude Salomon et Claude Guillerme. Paris: Centre de documentation des Inspections générales, Dossier 7575.
Jardin, A. (2008). Décentralisation et financement de la formation initiale. Quelles implications pour les régions françaises (Mémoire de Master professionnel Evaluation et analyse financière pour les collectivités territoriales). Université de Rennes 1, Rennes.
Jeffery, C. (1999). From Cooperative Federalism to a ‘Sinatra Doctrine’ of the Länder? In C. Jeffery (Ed.), Recasting German federalism: The Legacies of Unification (pp. 329–334). London: Pinter.
Jeffery, C. (2005). Federalism: The New Territorialism. In S. Green & W. E. Paterson (Eds.), The Semi-Sovereign State Revisited (pp. 78–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kultusministerkonferenz. (1973). Schüler, Klassen, Lehrer und Absolventen der Schulen. Bonn: Statistische Veröffentlichungen der KMK, Sekretariat der KMK.
Lehmbruch, G. (1998). Parteienwettbewerb im Bundesstaat: Regelsysteme und Spannungslagen im Institutionengefüge der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Opladen: Westdeutsche Verlag.
Leschinsky, A. (2003). Der institutionnelle Rahmen des Bildungswesen. In K. S. Cortina & et al. (Eds.), Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. trukturen und Entwicklungen im Überblick. Ein Bericht des Max Planck Instituts für Bildungsforschung (pp. 148–213). Reinbeck: Rowohlt.
Mäding, H. (1989). Federalism and Education Planning in the Federal Republic of Germany. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 19(4), 115–131.
Mäding, H. (1994). Föderalismus und Bildungsplanung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In A. B. Gunlicks & R. Voigt (Éds.), Föderalismus in der Bewährungsprobe: die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in den 90er Jahren (pp. 147–170). Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Mann, M. (1984). The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results. Archives européennes de sociologie, 25, 185–213.
Mény, Y., & Wright, V. (1985). Center-Periphery Relations in Western Europe. London: Allen.
Ministère de l’Education nationale. (1968). Disparités dans la formation des adolescents. L’exemple des petites villes—Résidence et formation, recherche sur l’originie des disparités régionales. Etudes et documents (11, Direction chargée de la prévision, Service central des statistiques et de la conjoncture).
Ministère de l’Education nationale. (1971). Les disparités régionales dans l’enseignement du second degré. Etudes et documents (21, Direction chargée de la prévision, Service central des statistiques et des sondages).
Ministère de l’Education nationale. (1974). Tableaux de l’éducation nationale. Paris: Service d’informations économiques et statistiques.
Ministère de l’Education nationale. (1980). Tableaux de l’éducation nationale. Paris: Service d’informations économiques et statistiques.
Ministère de l’Education nationale. (1988). L’état des capacités d’accoeuil d’enseignement selon l’académie au 1er janvier 1986. Note d’information, 88(18).
Ministère de l’Education nationale. (1993). Géographie de l’école. Paris: Direction de l’évaluation et de la prospective.
Morel, S. (2002). Ecole, territoires et identités. Les politiques publiques françaises à l’épreuve de l’ethnicité. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Münding, A. (1995). Die Kultusministerkonferenz im Prozess der deutschen Einigung. Deutschland Archiv, 5, 507–515.
Ozouf, M. (1984). L’école de la France. Essais sur la Révolution, l’utopie et l’enseignement. Paris: Gallimard.
Pasquier, R. (2012). Le Pouvoir régional. Mobilisations, décentralisation et gouvernance en France. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Patriarca, S. (1996). Numbers and Nationhood : Writing Statistics in Nineteenth-Century Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Périé, R. (1984). Organisation et gestion de l’éducation nationale. Services centraux et services extérieurs. Paris: Berger-Levrault.
Picht, G. (1964). Die deutsche Bildungskatastrophe. Analyse und Dokumentation. Olten: Walter.
Pons, X. (2008). L’Etat éducateur français à travers sa production statistique : configurations historiques d’une science d’Etat (1797–2007). In J. Barroche, N. Le Bouëdec, & X. Pons (Eds.), Figures de l’Etat éducateur. Pour une approche pluridisciplinaire. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Prost, A. (1983). Les études et leurs études au seuil du XXIème siècle. Rapport du groupe de travail national sur les seconds cycles, ministère de l’Education nationale, Service d’information.
Prost, A. (1992). Education, société et politiques. Une histoire de l’enseignement en France de 1945 à nos jours. Paris: Ed. du Seuil.
Raschert, J. (1980). Bildungspolitik im kooperativen Föderalismus. Die Entwicklung der Länderübergreifenden Planung und Koordination des Bildungswesens der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In Projektgruppe Bildungsbericht am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Éd.), Bildung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Daten und Analysen. Band 1: Entwicklungen seit 1950 (pp. 101–215). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Reiter-Mayer, P. (2005). Die Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister im föderalen System: Zur Rollenfindung und Reformfâhigkeit. In Jahrbuch des Föderalismus 2005. Föderalismus, Subsidiarität and Regionen in Europa. Band 6 (pp. 163–173). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Scharpf, F. W. (1988). The Joint-Decision Trap. Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration. Public Administration, 66, 239–287.
Scharpf, F. W. (2006). Nicht genutzte Chancen der Föderalismusreform. MPIfG Working Paper (06/2).
Scharpf, F. W., Reissert, B., & Schnabel, F. (1976). Politikverflechtung: Theorie und Empirie des kooperativen Föderalismus in der Bundesrepublik. Kronberg im Taunus: Scriptor.
Schmidt, M. G. (1994). Politikverflechtung zwischen Bund, Ländern und Gemeinden. Hagen: FernUniversität−Gesamthochschule Hagen.
Scott, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Simon, J. (1988). Le transfert de compétence en matière d’enseignement. Réflexions sur la genèse et la mise en oeuvre d’une réforme. Revue administrative, 12–17.
Simon, J. (1992). La décentralisation du système éducatif—six ans après. Savoir, 4(2), 223–237.
Stern, J. (2000). Programme versus Pragmatik. Parteien und ihre Pragramme als Einfluss- und Gestaltungsgrösse auf bildungspolitische Entscheidungsprozesse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Swenden, W. (2006). Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Toulemonde, B. (1988). Petite histoire d’un grand ministère. Paris: Albin Michel.
Van Zanten, A. (2006a). La construction des politiques d’éducation. De la centralisation à la délégation au local. In P. D. Culpepper, P. A. Hall, & B. Palier (Éds.), La France en mutation, 1980–2005 (pp. 229–263). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Van Zanten, A. (2006b). La décentralisation vue d’en haut: y a-t-il une régulation centrale de la décentralisation dans le domaine de l’éducation. In A. Van Zanten (Éd.), La décentralisation éducative en France (pp. 176–211). Paris: Rapport de recherche remis à l’ESEN, OSC.
Wälti, S. (2013). Federalism and Public Policy. Do Federalism, Regionalism and Hybridity Make Any Difference? Evidence from Environmental Policy. In J. Loughlin, J. Kincaid, & W. Swenden (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Regionalism & Federalism. London and New York: Routledge.
Weishaupt, H. (1998). Schulversuche—Modeelversuche. In C. Führ & C.-L. Furck (Eds.), Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte. Band VI: 1945 bis zur Gengenwart. Erster Teilband: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 378–389). München: Verlag C.H. Beck.
Wolf, F. (2006). Die Bildungsausgaben der Bundesländer im Vergleich. Welche Faktoren erklären ihre beträchtliche Variation? Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dupuy, C. (2020). The State, an Absent Guardian of Territorial Equality. In: Converging Regional Education Policy in France and Germany. Comparative Territorial Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40834-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40834-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40833-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40834-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)