Tilburg University Immune to reform? Understanding democratic reform in three consensus democracies Geurtz, J.C.H.C. Publication date: 2012 Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Geurtz, J. C. H. C. (2012). Immune to reform? Understanding democratic reform in three consensus democracies: the Netherlands compared with Germany, and Austria. Optima Grafische Communicatie. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. sep. 2021 Immune to reform? Casper Geurtz ISBN: 978-94-6169-300-6 © Casper Geurtz, 2012 No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, without permission from the author, or, when appropriate, from the publishers of the publications. Layout and printing: Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Immune to reform? Understanding democratic reform in three consensus democracies: the Netherlands compared with Germany, and Austria Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. Ph. Eijlander, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van de Universiteit op maandag 15 oktober 2012 om 14.15 uur door Johannes Casper Hendrikus Cornelis Geurtz, geboren op 2 juni 1983 te Rotterdam Promotiecommissie: Promotor: Prof. dr. F. Hendriks Copromotor: Dr. L. Schaap Overige leden: Prof. dr. L.H.J. Adams Prof. dr. A.F.A. Korsten Prof. dr. A.B. Ringeling Preface Sometimes one reads prefaces of PhD theses that refer to personal and professional hard- ship. I was in the lucky position to experience neither in a form worth mentioning during the four years of reading, writing, teaching, and researching at the Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur (TSPB). This had to do with the people I worked with and those I spent time with outside of the TSPB – although these do overlap, as the TSPB traditionally employs people that are both good at their job and interesting and fun people in general. In this preface, I would like to thank the people who have helped me write this thesis in some way. I apologize in advance for the melodrama that seems to come with prefaces no matter what one tries. A first word of thanks goes out to my supervisor and co-supervisor, Frank and Linze. You make an excellent supervisory team. As a team, you have complementary strenghts and focus on different (but both important) aspects of research and coaching. We planned regular meet- ings to discuss the progress of the project. Each time, I left with renewed inspiration and energy to work on the thesis. To give an example of the regularity of the meetings: one meeting took place during Frank’s sabbatical in Lausanne. Discussing big chunks of different PhD projects together with Frank’s other doctoral students on the lake front of lake Geneva was certainly a highlight. I learned a great deal from both of you. A second word of thanks goes out to all those that have contributed in some way to the project. In the first place, I think of all the respondents that have made time to talk with me (some more than once – as you can see in appendix 1) about the reform processes. It was inspiring to conduct interviews with many interesting people, in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria. Secondly, I would like to thank all that made time to look at (parts of) the manu- script. This includes fellow doctoral students, but also text editors (especially Ineke Sijtsma). Faults that remain are my own (some, it may surprise you, by choice). I would like to thank the Netherlands Institute for Governance and the Tilburg Graduate School for making the research project possible. An important contribution came from Sandra van Thiel, who once asked me if I wanted to participate in the Public Administration Research Master. I declined as I was planning to do a part of my Master in the United States. Hearing this, she asked me if I had considered doing a PhD after my Master and got me on track for it in the first place. I also want to thank Tamara Metze and Katharina Paul for helping me find a place to stay in Vienna so I could conduct research in Austria. A third word of thanks goes out to all the nice colleagues at the TSPB. Some of you I worked with whilst teaching classes, some doing research projects, others I did not do joint projects with but socialized with none the less. Several of you I now consider to be more friends than colleagues. I could write a list of names here, but thinking about it, it would be a list of almost the entire TSPB. I think you know who you are. I do want to mention my two room mates, Merlijn van Hulst and Niels Karsten, and thank them for letting me (most of the time at least) play music and watch the occasional sports event while working. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family. Some of you seemed to think that I was still studying, asking about my progress in ‘school’. Your paradoxical detached-but-interested attitude made it easy to relax and think of other things than the thesis. Since the development of Whats App the attempts to get me to think of other things have become hard to ignore. Not an hour passed without my telephone pinging or buzzing (my apologies to the roomies). The occasional summertime pictures of friends on the beach while I was working in a book-stacked office were a good motivator to get the job done. I want to single out Maurits Hekking and Jaro Illing and thank them for being my ushers, but otherwise, as with my TSPB friends/colleagues (there is no nice combination of these words), you know who you are. Whether friends I know from school, university, part time jobs, football, or friends that do not fit those categories: thanks for the good times! I hope for many more in the future. Of the many relatives I have, I would like to thank my parents and sister in particular. You have always supported me: I value it a lot. Rosalie, I will not thank you. I remind you instead of what you once told me about your Master’s thesis: “Why thank people? I wrote this myself”. Rotterdam, July 2012 Table of Contents Chapter 1: The problematic nature of democratic reform 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Democratic systems and change 16 1.3 Case selection 21 1.4 Relevance of the research project: The functioning of democracy 25 1.5 Research question 31 1.6 Structure of the book 32 Chapter 2: Theories of democratic reform 2.1 Introduction 35 2.2 Institutionalism and institutional change 37 2.3 Formal institutional structures and democratic reform processes 41 2.4 Political actors in democratic reform processes 49 2.5 The context of democratic reform processes 59 2.6 Reconnecting the formal structure, political actors, and reform context 63 2.7 Analytical framework Institutional structure 65 2.8 Research tools and methods 70 2.9 Summary 72 Chapter 3: Democratic reform processes in the Netherlands 3.1 Introduction 77 3.2 Direct mayoral elections Introduction and background to the reform process 85 3.3 Corrective legislative referendum 110 3.4 Comparing the Dutch reform cases 122 3.5 Democratic reform in the Netherlands 127 Chapter 4: Democratic reform processes in Germany 4.1 Introduction 133 4.2 Direct mayoral elections in the German Länder 138 4.3 Referendums in the German Länder 154 4.4 Comparing the German reform cases 162 4.5 Democratic reform in Germany 166 Chapter 5: Democratic reform processes in Austria 5.1 Introduction 171 5.2 Direct mayoral elections Introduction and background to the reform process 179 5.3 The introduction of a consultative referendum in Austria 198 5.4 Comparing the Austrian reform cases 208 5.5 Democratic reform in Austria 211 Chapter 6: How to understand democratic reform in the Netherlands,Germany, and Austria 6.1 Introduction 215 6.2 Similarities and differences between the reform cases 216 6.3 Understanding democratic (non-)reform in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria 230 6.4 Concluding remarks 240 Chapter 7: Epilogue: Do reforms matter? 7.1 Introduction 245 7.2 Immediate effects of the (attempted) reforms 245 7.3 Wider effects of the (attempted) reforms 248 7.4 Concluding remarks 255 Summary in English 259 Samenvatting in het Nederlands 271 Appendix 1 – Interviewed persons 285 Appendix 2 – Documents studied 291 Bibliography 301 Chapter 1 The problematic nature of democratic reform The problematic nature of democratic reform 13 1.1 IntRODUctiON The ideal form of government has been a matter of interest to people for a long time. Famous philosophers from Plato to Machiavelli, from Aristotle to Marx, and from Hobbes to Arendt, il- lustrate the number of bright minds that have deemed it worthwhile to think about various sys- tems of government (McClelland 2002; Adams and Popelier 2004; Flyvbjerg 2007).