Configurations, Dynamics and

Mechanisms of Multilevel Governance

Nathalie Behnke
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/configurations-dynamics-and-mechanisms-of-multilev
el-governance-nathalie-behnke/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Inclusive Development and Multilevel Transboundary

Water Governance The Kabul River 1st Edition Shakeel
Hayat (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/inclusive-development-and-
multilevel-transboundary-water-governance-the-kabul-river-1st-
edition-shakeel-hayat-author/

Configurations of the Individual in Modern Chinese

Literature Qin Wang

https://textbookfull.com/product/configurations-of-the-
individual-in-modern-chinese-literature-qin-wang/

Nutrition and Cardiometabolic Health 1st Edition

Nathalie Bergeron

https://textbookfull.com/product/nutrition-and-cardiometabolic-
health-1st-edition-nathalie-bergeron/
The Network Organization: A Governance Perspective on
Structure, Dynamics and Performance 1st Edition Anna
Moretti (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-network-organization-a-
governance-perspective-on-structure-dynamics-and-performance-1st-
edition-anna-moretti-auth/

Redefining Diversity & Dynamics of Natural Resources

Management in Asia, Volume 4. The Reciprocal
Relationship Between Governance of Natural Resources
and Socio-Ecological Systems Dynamics in West Sumatra
Indonesia 1st Edition Ganesh Shivakoti
https://textbookfull.com/product/redefining-diversity-dynamics-
of-natural-resources-management-in-asia-volume-4-the-reciprocal-
relationship-between-governance-of-natural-resources-and-socio-
ecological-systems-dynamics-in-west-sum/

Gender Studies and the New Academic Governance Global

Challenges Glocal Dynamics and Local Impacts 1st
Edition Heike Kahlert

https://textbookfull.com/product/gender-studies-and-the-new-
academic-governance-global-challenges-glocal-dynamics-and-local-
impacts-1st-edition-heike-kahlert/

Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Bruno Castanho

Silva

https://textbookfull.com/product/multilevel-structural-equation-
modeling-bruno-castanho-silva/

Data-Driven Storytelling 1st Edition Nathalie Henry

Riche

https://textbookfull.com/product/data-driven-storytelling-1st-
edition-nathalie-henry-riche/
C O M P A R AT I V E T E R R I T O R I A L P O L I T I C S

Configurations,
Dynamics and Mechanisms
of Multilevel Governance

Edited by Nathalie Behnke,

Jörg Broschek, Jared Sonnicksen
Comparative Territorial Politics

Series Editors
Michael Keating
University of Aberdeen
Aberdeen, UK

Arjan H. Schakel
Maastricht University
Maastricht, The Netherlands

Michaël Tatham
University of Bergen
Bergen, Norway
Territorial politics is one of the most dynamic areas in contemporary
political science. Rescaling, new and re-emergent nationalisms, regional
devolution, government, federal reform and urban dynamics have
reshaped the architecture of government at sub-state and transnational
levels, with profound implications for public policy, political competi-
tion, democracy and the nature of political community. Important policy
fields such as health, education, agriculture, environment and economic
development are managed at new spatial levels. Regions, stateless nations
and metropolitan areas have become political arenas, contested by old
and new political parties and interest groups. All of this is shaped by
transnational integration and the rise of supranational and international
bodies like the European Union, the North American Free Trade Area
and the World Trade Organization. The Comparative Territorial Politics
series brings together monographs, pivot studies, and edited collec-
tions that further scholarship in the field of territorial politics and pol-
icy, decentralization, federalism and regionalism. Territorial politics is
ubiquitous and the series is open towards topics, approaches and meth-
ods. The series aims to be an outlet for innovative research grounded
in political science, political geography, law, international relations and
sociology. Previous publications cover topics such as public opinion,
government formation, elections, parties, federalism, and nationalism.
Please do not hesitate to contact one of the series editors in case you
are interested in publishing your book manuscript in the Comparative
Territorial Politics series. Book proposals can be sent to Ambra Finotello
(Ambra.Finotello@palgrave.com). We kindly ask you to include sam-
ple material with the book proposal, preferably an introduction chap-
ter explaining the rationale and the structure of the book as well as an
empirical sample chapter.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14910
 Nathalie Behnke · Jörg Broschek
Jared Sonnicksen
Editors

Configurations,
Dynamics and
Mechanisms of
Multilevel Governance
Editors
Nathalie Behnke Jörg Broschek
Institute for Political Science Department of Political Science
Technische Universität Darmstadt Wilfrid Laurier University
Darmstadt, Germany Waterloo, ON, Canada

Jared Sonnicksen
Institute for Political Science
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Darmstadt, Germany

Comparative Territorial Politics

ISBN 978-3-030-05510-3 ISBN 978-3-030-05511-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05511-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018963741

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: © Anucha Sirivisansuwan/Getty Images

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

The idea for this edited volume is twofold: First, it aims to provide a
comprehensive collection of cutting-edge trans-Atlantic contributions to
the diverse research perspectives on governing and governance in mul-
tilevel systems that are meanwhile encompassed by the umbrella notion
of ‘multilevel governance’ (MLG). Originally, the notion of MLG was
developed with the aim of describing and analysing policy-making in the
EU, but the concept was gradually enlarged to, for example, research
on federalism, decentralization and regionalization or transnational net-
works. Meanwhile, this research tradition has come of age, the first influ-
ential publications dating back nearly two decades, and its theoretical,
conceptual and empirical advances are considerable. Thus the prolifera-
tion and differentiation of MLG research provides a worthwhile occasion
to assemble a selection of new contributions representing the state-of-
the-art in its different fields of application.
Second, this volume is also inspired by and builds upon the intellec-
tual opus of Arthur Benz, one of the most prominent and pioneering
scholars—a ‘leading light’, as one of the anonymous reviewers to this
book proposal termed it rightly—in both the field of MLG and the com-
parative analysis of governing in multilevel systems. To this end, the
volume brings together a selection of his academic companions whose
recent research together reflects the state of the art in MLG.
Research related to MLG has also grown tremendously with a view
to the cross-over to other fields such as comparative federalism, institu-
tional and constitutional change, or challenges of democratic legitimacy

v
vi    Preface

in multilevel settings. These dynamic research fields are reflected in the

increasing prominence of MLG-related articles in scholarly journals and
a growing number of related books including monographs and editions.
Our edited volume builds upon, complements and supplements this
existing body of literature in the field. It is not our theoretical ambition
to offer yet another theory on dynamics and consequences of multilevel
governance. Rather, the volume assembles contributions of a number
of leading federalism and MLG scholars that apply existing, well refined
tools and develop novel conceptual frameworks for describing and ana-
lysing the complex developments that we observe in the real multilevel
world. Thus, while being initially motivated for the purpose of honour-
ing the scholarship of Arthur Benz, the volume’s ambition and scope
extend far beyond a conventional Festschrift to advance the state of the
art on MLG empirically as well as conceptually.
This edited volume has further aspired to achieve a balanced thematic
breadth. As Arthur Benz is himself concerned with diverse facets of gov-
erning in multilevel systems, the book, in mirroring his prolific academic
work, illustrates the conceptual linkages between several research strands,
which together provide a compelling argument for the broad applicability
of basic notions of multilevel dynamics and can be used to cross-fertilize
each other. Those research strands are the governance perspective on the
state as taken on by public administration researchers; classic comparative
federalism; aspects of democratic legitimacy; and dynamics of patterns and
processes of MLG in a quickly involving environment. This book high-
lights commonalities among them and seeks to encourage the broader
use of an encompassing conceptual framework—one that contributes to
a complex and informative way of ‘thinking about politics’—as much as
understanding and explaining how governing works in a complex world.
This research aspiration and analytical ‘spirit’ is greatly inspired by and
reflective of Arthur’s approach and extensive contributions to social sci-
ence scholarship.

Darmstadt, Germany Nathalie Behnke

Waterloo, Canada Jörg Broschek
Darmstadt, Germany Jared Sonnicksen
 Contents

1 Introduction: The Relevance of Studying Multilevel

Governance 1
Nathalie Behnke, Jörg Broschek and Jared Sonnicksen

Part I Government, Governance and the State—Varied

Modes of Coordination in Policy-Making

2 Transformation of the State and Multilevel Governance 23

Arthur Benz

3 How Bureaucratic Networks Make Intergovernmental

Relations Work: A Mechanism Perspective 41
Nathalie Behnke

4 ‘Governance Fatigue’ and Public Mismanagement:

The Case for Classic Bureaucracy and Public Values 61
Wolfgang Seibel

5 Cooperative Administration in Multilevel Governance

Analysis: Incorporating Governance Mechanisms into
the Concept 79
Nicolai Dose

vii
viii    Contents

Part II Coping with Complexities: Governance in

Multilevel Systems

6 Policy-Making as a Source of Change in Federalism:

A Dynamic Approach 99
Dietmar Braun and Johanna Schnabel

7 National Parliaments as Multi-Arena-Players: A New

Deliberative Role Within the EU Multilevel System? 117
Katrin Auel

8 Intermediary Levels of Governance in Multilevel

Systems: Exploring the Second Tier of Local
Government from the Assessment of Laymen Politicians 135
Björn Egner

9 Bridging the Gap Between the Local and the Global

Scale? Taming the Wicked Problem of Climate Change
Through Trans-Local Governance 155
Jörg Kemmerzell

10 Multilevel Coordination in EU Energy Policy:

A New Type of “Harder” Soft Governance? 173
Michèle Knodt

11 Soft Law Implementation in the EU Multilevel System:

Legitimacy and Governance Efficiency Revisited 193
Miriam Hartlapp

Part III Federalism and Democracy

12 The Ambivalence of Federalism and Democracy:

The Challenging Case of Authoritarianism—With
Evidence from the Russian Case 213
Sabine Kropp
 Contents    ix

13 Popular Federalism for a Compound Polity? The

Federalism of the Antifederalists and Implications
for Multilevel Governance 231
Dirk Jörke and Jared Sonnicksen

14 Multilevel Democracy: A Comparative Perspective 249

Fritz W. Scharpf

15 On Cross-Level Responsiveness in Multilevel Politics:

A Comparison of Airport Expansions in Germany,
Switzerland and the UK 273
Eike-Christian Hornig

16 Demoi-cracy: A Useful Framework for Theorizing

the Democratization of Multilevel Governance? 293
Achim Hurrelmann and Joan DeBardeleben

17 Extending the Coupling Concept: Slack, Agency

and Fields 311
John Erik Fossum

Part IV Explaining Dynamics in Multilevel Systems

18 The Evolution of Legislative Power-Sharing in the

EU Multilevel System 331
Katharina Holzinger and Jan Biesenbender

19 Hidden Power Shifts: Multilevel Governance

and Interstitial Institutional Change in Europe 351
Adrienne Héritier

20 Sub-Federal State-Building and the Origins of

Federalism: A Comparison of Austria, Germany
and Switzerland 369
Gerhard Lehmbruch
x    Contents

21 Conclusion: Governing Under the Condition of

Complexity 387
Arthur Benz

Index 411
 Notes on Contributors

Katrin Auel is Associate Professor and head of the research group

‘European Governance and Public Finance’ at the Institute for Advanced
Studies (IHS) in Vienna. Her research focuses on Europeanization, mul-
tilevel governance, and legislative studies, especially parliamentary com-
munication and the role of national parliaments in the EU.
Nathalie Behnke is Professor of Public Administration and Public
Policy at the Department of Political Science at Technische Universität
Darmstadt. Her research focus is located at the interface of empirical
public administration research, comparative federalism and multilevel
governance. Recently, she worked on the role of senior civil servants in
intergovernmental coordination and negotiation processes.
Arthur Benz is Professor of Comparative Politics and German
Government at the Institute for Political Science, Technische Universität
Darmstadt. His research focuses on German politics, comparative fed-
eralism, multilevel governance. He particularly works on institutional
change and policy change in multilevel governments and in democracy in
federal systems.
Jan Biesenbender is a political scientist by training. He has a Ph.D. in
political sciences from the University of Konstanz. He is currently employed
at the headquarters of a large German non-university research organisation.
Dietmar Braun is Professor emeritus at the Institute of Political,
Historical and International Studies of the Université de Lausanne.

xi
xii    Notes on Contributors

His main areas of research are comparative politics and federalism, research
policy, modern political theories and especially concepts in political science.
Jörg Broschek is Canada Research Chair in Comparative Federalism
and Multilevel Governance and Associate Professor of Political Science
at Wilfrid Laurier University. His current research agenda focuses on the
patterns and long-term consequences of federal reforms, the causes of
federalization and de-federalization, and economic integration in multi-
level systems. He is principal investigator of two projects funded by the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC):
“The Politics of Federal Reform: Australia, Canada, Germany and
Switzerland since the 1990s” (2016–2020) and “IMPoRT: Investigating
Multilevel Politics through Research on Trade” (2017–2020).
Joan DeBardeleben is Chancellor’s Professor in the Institute of
European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies (EURUS), Jean Monnet Chair
in EU Relations with Russia and the Eastern Neighbourhood Relations,
and Co-Director of the Centre for European Studies at Carleton
University in Ottawa, Canada. Her research interests include EU-Russian
relations, the EU’s Eastern Partnership policy, political participation and
elections in the EU, and Russian politics.
Nicolai Dose is Professor of Political Science and Public Administration
at the Universität Duisburg-Essen. His research focuses on public admin-
istration, legislative impact, governance and steering, policy analysis,
environmental policy, and the German political system and parties and
federalism in particular.
Björn Egner is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Political Science
at Technische Universität Darmstadt. He chairs the research group
“Methodology and Philosophy of Science” at the institute. His research
interests include local politics, quantitative methodology, policy analysis,
housing and fiscal policy.
John Erik Fossum is Professor of political science at ARENA Centre for
European Studies at the University of Oslo, Norway. His research focuses
on democracy, constitutionalism and federalism in the EU and Canada.
Miriam Hartlapp is Professor at the Otto-Suhr-Institute for Political
Science, head of the working area for German and French Politics,
Free University of Berlin. Her research focuses on the EU political sys-
tem, issues of compliance, enforcement and implementation in the EU
 Notes on Contributors    xiii

multilevel system, as well as economic, social, and employment policies

in European and international comparison.
Adrienne Héritier is Emeritus Professor in the Social and Political
Sciences Department and Part Time Professor at the Robert Schuman
Center for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute,
Florence, and former Director of the Max Planck Project Group for
‘Common Goods: Law, Politics, and Economics’ in Bon. Her main
research interests are on institutions, governance, democracy, competi-
tion policy, and market regulation.
Katharina Holzinger is Full Professor of International Relations
and Conflict Management at the Department of Politics and Public
Administration at the University of Konstanz. Her main research areas
include environmental policy, the European Union and multilevel sys-
tems, negotiation, deliberation and conflict resolution, as well as tradi-
tional governance in Africa.
Eike-Christian Hornig is Professor for Democracy and Democratization
Research at the Institute for Political Science, Universität Giessen,
Germany. His research areas include comparative government, democratic
participation, direct democracy in particular, and political parties.
Achim Hurrelmann is Associate Professor of Political Science and
Co-Director of the Centre for European Studies (CES) at Carleton
University, Ottawa, Canada. His research focuses on multilevel gov-
ernance, especially in the EU; political discourses about European inte-
gration; debates about democracy and legitimacy in the EU; as well as
Canada-EU relations.
Dirk Jörke is Professor of political theory and the history of politi-
cal ideas at the Institute of Political Science, Technische Universität
Darmstadt. His research focuses on democratic theory, populism, and
American political thought.
Jörg Kemmerzell is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Political
Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt. He works in the research
consortium “System Integration and Networks for the Energy Supply”,
funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research. His research
areas are comparative government and institutions, local and regional
policy, and climate and energy policy.
xiv    Notes on Contributors

Michèle Knodt is Jean Monnet Professor for Comparative Politics and

European Integration at the Institute for Political Science, Technische
Universität Darmstadt. Her research areas include EU internal and exter-
nal energy governance, EU democracy promotion policy, civil society
and interest mediation in the European multilevel system.
Sabine Kropp is Professor of Political Science at the Free University of
Berlin, Germany. Her research interests include comparative federalism,
the political system of Germany, parliaments, and autocracy and democ-
racy in comparative perspective.
Gerhard Lehmbruch is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the
University of Konstanz. He has published extensively on comparative
government, corporatism, consociational democracy, institutionalism,
German federalism and unification, and sectoral governance.
Fritz W. Scharpf is Professor and Emeritus Director of the Max Planck
Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG) in Cologne. His areas of
research include comparative multilevel governance and federalism, com-
parative political economy of welfare states, game theory, and organisa-
tion problems and decision making in government.
Johanna Schnabel is a Newton International Fellow (British Academy)
at the University of Kent, United Kingdom. Her research areas are in
comparative federalism and intergovernmental relations, focusing on
intergovernmental councils, fiscal consolidation, and conditional grants.
Wolfgang Seibel is a Full Professor of Politics and Public Administration
in Konstanz and an Adjunct Professor of Public Administration at the
Hertie School of Governance, Berlin. His recent work focuses on the the-
ory of public administration, including variants of drastic administrative
failure and disasters, and on international bureaucracies, ranging from
occupation regimes during World War II to humanitarian intervention
and complex UN peacekeeping missions.
Jared Sonnicksen is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Political
Science of the Technische Universität Darmstadt. His research areas are
in comparative government (in Europe, the EU, and North America),
federalism and multilevel governance, with a cross-cutting focus on the
respective democratic challenges under conditions of complexity. He is
also particularly interested in how to ensure inclusion, participation and
representation in changing societies.
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Years of experience in office 51

Fig. 3.2 Backbone layout of network clusters—Sectoral clusters 52
Fig. 3.3 Backbone layout of network clusters—Territorial clusters 53
Fig. 4.1 Public–private coalition building and inter-agency rivalry
in the planning and preparation process of the Duisburg
Loveparade of 24 July 2010 72
Fig. 15.1 Map of the electoral districts for the Bavarian Landtag
(blue lines) and the localization of approach and departure
flight paths on a westbound traffic day to Munich airport 280
Fig. 15.2 Map of the electoral districts of the canton of Zurich
and the local distribution of aircraft noise related
to Zurich airport (The districts marked in grey belong
to the City of Zurich, blue areas are lakes. Different
colors mark three degrees of average aircraft noise with
red marked areas confronted with average noise level
between 55 and 79 db) 283
Fig. 16.1 Spectrum of demoi-cratic positions, and approximate
placement of key authors 304

Graph 11.1 Implementation of EU soft law in the EU multilevel system 198

xv
 List of Tables

Table 5.1 Deadlocks and micro level-strategies to overcome

or create them 87
Table 6.1 Federal performance 106
Table 7.1 Institutions of inter-parliamentary cooperation 125
Table 8.1 Calculated influence between the county level
and other levels of government 141
Table 8.2 Assessed desirability of reforms concerning the counties
(means) 145
Table 8.3 Correlation between influence gap and reform options
on the individual level 146
Table 8.4 Multilevel models for reform proposals 150
Table 10.1 Types of governance in the European multilevel system 179
Table 11.1 Effects of financial market regulation EU soft law
instruments in Germany 201
Table 11.2 Effects of social policy EU soft law instruments in Germany 205
Table 11.3 Effects of environmental policy EU soft law instruments
in Germany 206
Table 15.1 Overview of direct-democratic votes related to aviation
and airport expansions 278
Table 15.2 MPs from Bundestag-constituencies around
MUC-Airport and their party affiliation 279
Table 15.3 NALA-parliamentary representation 289
Table 15.4 Cross-level responsiveness in comparison 289
Table 15.5 Impact of direct democracy on cross-level responsiveness 290
Table 18.1 Decisions taken in the Consultation procedure 341
Table 18.2 Decisions taken in the Cooperation procedure 342

xvii
xviii    List of Tables

Table 18.3 Decisions taken in the Codecision II procedure 345

Table 18.4 Outcomes from Codecision II procedure 346
Table 21.1 Institutional dimensions of MLG and democratic
government 397
Table 21.2 Coupling by party politics 399
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: The Relevance

of Studying Multilevel Governance

Nathalie Behnke, Jörg Broschek and Jared Sonnicksen

Why Another Book on Multilevel Governance?

The notion of multilevel governance (MLG) has gained immense
­popularity over the past 20 years, pervading large parts of the academic
literature (Hooghe and Marks 2001; Bache and Flinders 2004, 2015;
Benz 2007; Enderlein et al. 2010; Piattoni 2010). MLG, or the con-
cept of governance at all for that matter, is, however, not just a fashion-
able catch-all expression among political scientists (see, e.g., for a critical
review Offe 2009). On the contrary, the emergence and permeation

N. Behnke (*) · J. Sonnicksen

Institute for Political Science,
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
e-mail: behnke@pg.tu-darmstadt.de
J. Sonnicksen
e-mail: sonnicksen@pg.tu-darmstadt.de
J. Broschek
Department of Political Science,
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada
e-mail: jbroschek@wlu.ca

© The Author(s) 2019 1

N. Behnke et al. (eds.), Configurations, Dynamics and Mechanisms
of Multilevel Governance, Comparative Territorial Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05511-0_1
2 N. BEHNKE, J. BROSCHEK AND J. SONNICKSEN

of MLG are warranted for a number of reasons. Among other things,

it captures several fundamental insights about the institutional structures
and policy-making processes of modern democratic states.
The first part of the notion, ‘multilevel’, acknowledges that the verti­
cal division of power between levels of government with some degree
of authority is no longer an exclusive feature of federal states (Hooghe
et al. 2016). Rather, processes of authority migration (Gerber and
Kollman 2004) beyond and below the level of the nation-state have pro-
pelled the development of multilevel architectures, inspiring scholarly
research to discover patterns and regularities but also challenges to con-
ventional forms and practices of democratic legitimacy under conditions
of growing complexity. Consequently, MLG encompasses intra-, trans-
and supranational processes and, frequently, their conjunction. Most
prominent cases of new multilevel architectures are devolved states, e.g.
the UK and Spain, and, of course, the European Union, the former rep-
resenting “holding together federalism” dynamics and the latter a new
type of “coming-together federalism” (Stepan 1999). The second part
of the notion, ‘governance’, acknowledges how processes of political
decision- and policy-making have long transcended the exclusive ambit
of ‘the state’. Hierarchical decisions taken by parliament and government
and implemented by the administration in a top-down manner are today
the exception rather than the rule, for multiple reasons. Those reasons
include the interdependence of modern political structures, the high
complexity of most policies involving spill-overs and incalculable exter-
nalities and, coinciding with these, the need for broad involvement of
stakeholders in the policy-making process.
Against this backdrop, it is not the theoretical ambition of this book
to offer yet another theory of MLG. Rather, it aims to link different
strands of recent research on (multilevel) governance, thus highlighting
the potential for mutual learning and conceptual spill-overs. First, with
the conceptual triad of ‘configurations’, ‘dynamics’, and ‘mechanisms’,
we capture the better part of recent developments in MLG research.
Configurational analyses aim at making sense of constellations of actors,
situational incentives and constraints and ensuing strategies of actors for
accomplishing their goals. In their eminent book, Hooghe and Marks
(2016) emphasized the duality of space and society as a relevant heuristic
for studying configurations of MLG. A dynamic perspective on processes
in MLG or on configurational and institutional changes has emerged
only recently (Benz and Broschek 2013a; Behnke and Kropp 2018),
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE RELEVANCE OF STUDYING … 3

developing concepts such as ‘authority migration’ (Gerber and Kollman

2004) for studying dynamics of multilevel power allocation or investi-
gating the effect of asymmetry for territorial dynamics (Hombrado
2011; Petersohn et al. 2015). In terms of mechanisms, historical insti-
tutionalist scholarship provided helpful heuristics, such as layering of
institutional changes (Orren and Skoworonek 1994; Broschek 2011)
for making sense of seemingly incompatible developments in multilevel
architectures.
Second, the contributions in this volume emphasize different strands
of governance research, but which are linked conceptually. Assembling
them in one volume allows for exploring potential for synergy and
mutual learning. The first part is anchored in the Public Administration
perspective grasping the changing nature of State-Society and State-
Economy relations by using governance and network concepts; the
second part comprises research based on the Comparative Federalism
perspective analysing institutions, processes and dynamics of verti-
cal authority migration in multilevel political systems; in the third part,
research contributions from the Theory of Democracy perspective tackle
the specific interdependency of multilevel (vertical) and democratic
(horizontal) decision making in terms of separation and sharing of pow-
ers; the fourth part is dedicated to concluding perspectives on analysing
conditions and variations of multilevel continuity and change.

Situating Multilevel Governance:

Configurations, Dynamics, Mechanisms

Multilevel Governance: A Configuration

How to conceive multilevel governance configurations lies at the heart
of the question of what MLG actually is. One “axis of ambiguity” in the
current debate identified by Tortola (2017) relates to the open question
of whether MLG should primarily be perceived as a structure or a process.
We suggest that it comprises both, structural and procedural features.
However, we likewise agree on the necessity to demarcate the concep-
tual boundaries of MLG more clearly. MLG denotes a distinct pattern
of political decision-making marked by several typical features: Processes
of decision-making tend to be organized sequentially, taking place across
several levels of a polity, whereby the territorial or spatial dimension is
relevant in a horizontal as well as a vertical direction. Actors involved
4 N. BEHNKE, J. BROSCHEK AND J. SONNICKSEN

represent formal political authorities as well as often quasi-­governmental

or even non-governmental actors representing society-based interests.
Accordingly, MLG is broader in scope than federalism as it transcends
the unitary-federal dichotomy (Hooghe and Marks 2016). Instances of
MLG exist within federal states, unitary states or beyond the realm of the
nation-state. Thus MLG allows us to capture multifarious configurations
of political decision-making and policy-making processes as well as other
patterns of producing ‘common goods’ (see, e.g., Héritier 2002) tran-
scending different forms or constitutions of political systems (spanning
various multilevel polities).
MLG configurations emerge and persist in different world regions and
different contexts. In this regard, another “axis of ambiguity” concerned
with the applicability of MLG beyond the context of European Union
politics, or even cohesion policy (Tortola 2017), is increasingly becom-
ing obsolete. For some time, it was altogether sensible to link MLG with
the peculiarities of the EU-system as a complex order defying categori-
zation as either an international organization or a state (Jordan 2001).
However, such self-limitation is at least outdated, if not analytically
­distorting given the diffusion of MLG configurations in a multitude of
national, sub-, trans- and international settings (Kersbergen and Waarden
2004).
Empirical research highlighted and categorized a broad variety of
MLG configurations. Such configurations emerge within specific pol-
icy domains, in the sense of Lowi’s (1964) famous verdict that policies
make politics. Alternatively, they may also take shape through more for-
malized rules and requirements, as in case of intergovernmental rela-
tions. An encompassing effort to map instances of MLG across time and
space has been presented by Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks (Hooghe
et al. 2016). Framing it as regional instead of MLG, Hooghe and Marks
track the institutional evolution of multilevel configurations in 81 coun-
tries from all world regions over 60 years. The focus of their ambitious
study lies on the creation and empowerment of sub-level political units
in nation-states. While this also includes formal federations such as
Germany or the United States, for the most part authority has migrated
from central governments to non-federal sub-state units. Another
recent strand of scholarship, advanced primarily by Canadian scholars
such as Chris Alcantara and Martin Papillon, explores MLG configura-
tions in settler societies (Alcantara et al. 2016; Papillon 2012; Papillon
and Juneau 2016). These scholars have deployed MLG to capture
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE RELEVANCE OF STUDYING … 5

the negotiation of land claim agreements or the emergence of different

forms of self-government arrangements for Indigenous peoples since the
1970s. This new approach sets itself apart from traditional scholarship
in this area, which analysed the growing complexity of state-Indigenous
relationships through a lens of “treaty federalism” (Hueglin 2000, 2013;
White 2002). This does not mean that federalism has become obsolete,
but it appears as an insufficient concept to capture qualitatively new
developments on its own.
Another source of configurational variation is the type and number of
actors involved, e.g. the degree to which in particular non-governmental
actors penetrate formalized routines of decision-making. What is crucial
is that a fairly persistent configuration of actors interacts in a recurrent
pattern over time. In doing so, configurations connect different political
arenas of collective action. Such arenas reside within the multiple “lay-
ers” that constitute a multilevel polity. MLG is akin to the idea of “inter-
currence”, a concept advanced by Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek
(2004) in the American Political Development (APD) approach. It sug-
gests conceiving any political order as consisting of ordering “layers”
or “arenas”, while actors representing various constituencies are sub-
ject to different institutional logics and endowed with different power
resources. Configurations of MLG, however, can also be broader in
scope, cross-cutting traditional boundaries between society and the state.
Finally, Fritz W. Scharpf’s actor-centred institutionalism, along
with more recent scholarship in comparative federalism, offers a use-
ful point of entry into the investigation of different modes of interac-
tion and power asymmetries found in configurations of MLG (Bakvis
and Skogstad 2012; Behnke and Mueller 2017; Bolleyer and Thorlakson
2012; Broschek 2015a; Mueller 2014; Scharpf 1997). Most generally,
such modes differ in terms of the degree of autonomy or interdepend-
ence actors enjoy within such configurations. It is possible to demarcate
analytically modes of interaction on a continuum between self-rule on
the one hand and shared-rule on the other. Self-rule endows collective
actors with autonomy. Accordingly, they can choose to act unilaterally,
either in a rather disruptive form that negatively transgresses the domain
of other collective actors, implying a considerable degree of hierarchy,
or in a less or non-harmful form, for example through mutual adjust-
ment (Benz 2012a). Alternatively, actors can also commit themselves to
cooperative strategies of collective action. In contrast, in highly entan-
gled and interdependent configurations of shared-rule, actors interact
6 N. BEHNKE, J. BROSCHEK AND J. SONNICKSEN

without real exit options in a rather rigid system of joint decision-

making. These different modes of interaction are not necessarily formal-
ized through constitutional provision, but may also result from de facto
interdependencies.

Multilevel Governance Dynamics

The ‘dynamics’ of MLG refers to the patterns and tensions between con-
tinuity and change in multilevel architectures. For as complex and inter-
dependent as they must be to perform effectively under conditions of
modern state governance, multilevel systems likewise need to be able to
constantly adapt to changing environmental or internal challenges. Only
if they change can they provide in the long run the necessary stability
for political interactions occurring within their structures (Behnke and
Benz 2009). Thus, a widespread research interest involves tracking those
changes, describing their direction, extent and type, as well as under-
standing in which way those changes are reactions to certain endogenous
or exogenous triggers for change and how they indeed contribute to
safeguard stability.
The literature on the “rise of regional authority” has revealed an
ongoing trend of “authority migration top-down” (Broschek 2015b)
over the last decades (Marks et al. 2008; Hooghe et al. 2016; Keating
2008) manifesting itself in the transfer of authority from centre-level to
lower-level jurisdictions. There is, however, no clear direction, or uni-
directional pattern, of shifting configurations. Authority also migrates
“bottom-up”, for example from sub-federal units to higher level tiers.
This could be observed e.g. in federal systems in the aftermath of the
2007–2008 financial crisis (Braun 2011; Benz and Sonnicksen 2018),
or the sequence of treaty revisions from Maastricht to Lisbon, which
cumulatively furnished EU institutions with more authority in a broad
range of policy areas (Fabbrini 2016; Genschel and Jachtenfuchs
2014). Moreover, changing directions of multilevel dynamics have
been explored in the horizontal relationship among constituent units
(Petersohn et al. 2015), between territorial units and party systems
(Lehmbruch 2000; Toubeau 2017), cities in federal and unitary states
(Horak and Young 2012) or Indigenous peoples and the state (Alcantara
and Nelles 2014; Papillon and Juneau 2016).
Dynamics of MLG are furthermore propelled by the interaction and
sometimes friction between multilevel and democratic requirements
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE RELEVANCE OF STUDYING … 7

of decision-making processes. While governance phenomena are by no

means limited to democratic polities per se (Gibson 2013), the demo-
cratic dimension of governance adds complexity. The democratic, hori-
zontal division-of-powers dimension requires, among other things,
accountability, representation and participation. They have to be rec-
onciled with the vertical division of powers endemic to multilevel
arrangements. Not only is complexity multiplied across the several levels
involved in the respective governance arrangements; the entangled and
often intransparent arrangements of multilevel politics, which may con-
tribute to effective decision making, structurally beg the question how to
secure democratic legitimacy.
More generally, dynamics means the ongoing interplay of continuity
and change (Benz and Broschek 2013b). At any given point in time, pat-
terns of continuity co-exist with patterns of change. Accordingly, multi-
level politics display differential dynamics: At times, change may become
predominant while at other times continuity prevails and change only
occurs at the margins. Accordingly, the extent and type of shifting MLG
dynamics refers to the relative amount of change that can be observed
within a given time period, and the form of institutional change.

Explaining MLG Dynamics: Sources and Mechanisms

What, then, explains variation in MLG configurations and dynam-
ics? What are the distant sources and the more proximate mechanisms
of authority migration in multilevel systems? A systematic comparative
research agenda must allow for a meaningful exploration of the emer-
gence and dynamics of MLG across time and space, as outlined in Arthur
Benz’s work on comparative federalism, MLG and the modern state.
His approach acknowledges the multi-dimensionality of multilevel
politics by conceiving them as composed of different “layers” and “are-
nas”. Instead of siding with either state-centred or institutionalist the-
ories on the one, society-centred approaches on the other hand, Benz
strives to identify the mechanisms of continuity and change that operate
between and among different arenas of collective action (e.g. Benz 1985,
2012b; Benz and Broschek 2013c; Benz and Sonnicksen 2017).
These frameworks and respective approaches allow for situating MLG
within the larger historical and comparative research agenda anchored in the
dynamic evolution of the modern state. Benz (e.g. 2012b) builds on recent
state theories in the tradition of Stein Rokkan and Albert O. Hirschman,
8 N. BEHNKE, J. BROSCHEK AND J. SONNICKSEN

most notably the work of Maurizio Ferrera (2005) or Stefano Bartolini

(2005). At the heart of this approach lies the concept of boundaries,
and an important driving force behind the transformation of the state
is the ongoing process of boundary re-drawing. This lens brings into
focus the long-term consequences of deliberate efforts to make bound-
aries more permeable for certain transactions over the last few decades
(see also Hooghe and Marks 2016). While partial boundary-open-
ing processes facilitated economic growth within the framework of
“embedded liberalism” (Ruggie 1982), the turn towards more radically
dis-embedded systems since the mid-1970s revealed the more negative
externalities caused by increased mobility of goods—and ‘bads’—, capi-
tal and information.
Boundaries matter in multilevel politics as they simultaneously limit
and enable the exercise of political authority. Self-rule and shared-rule
represent different options for collective actors or political units to reas-
sert boundary control. The politics of boundary control in multilevel sys-
tems surfaces in two ways. First, it allows sublevel units or societal actors
to develop strategies that directly shield them from encroachments from
the centre or other territorial units (Rokkan and Urwin 1983; Ferrera
2005; Gibson 2013). Such strategies seek to preserve or enhance local
autonomy through self-rule. Second, boundary control can also have a
more indirect, anticipatory effect. It gives sublevel units or societal actors
leverage to demand concessions from the centre. Most notably, they can
agree to refrain from using their boundary-protected authority, or even
concede to a partial boundary-opening, in exchange for stronger partic-
ipation rights. Such strategies seek to suspend or reduce local or social
autonomy but strengthen, at the same time, shared-rule mechanisms
within configurations of MLG.
But what, then, are the more distant sources that animate mechanisms
of MLG dynamics? For Arthur Benz, making reference to Hirschman
(1970), exit, voice and loyalty are important driving forces behind shift-
ing governance configurations. Loyalty indicates changing patterns of
identification among citizens with political communities constituted
on different territorial scales. As the consequences of increasing bound-
ary permeability became more perceptible, change-seeking collective
actors such as political parties, interest groups or social movements put
into question established ties of loyalty. A new political cleavage between
“winners” and “losers” of globalization has manifested itself in an ongo-
ing contestation between sub-state units such as municipalities, regions
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE RELEVANCE OF STUDYING … 9

or constituent units in federal states, nation-states and supra- or interna-

tional entities (Kriesi et al. 2008). While well-educated and cosmopolitan-
minded citizens tend to appreciate the empowerment of emerging sites
of political authority like the EU or cities (Barber 2013), the resurgence
of nationalist and authoritarian sentiments indicate an equally powerful
counter-discourse seeking to reinforce exclusively defined political com-
munities within the realm of established or developing nation-states.
Shifting patterns of loyalty correspond with different institutional
responses. In case of exit, sub-level units or societal actors seek with-
drawal from a political community, e.g. because it is perceived as
incapable of producing public goods or prone to distributing them asym-
metrically. Soft exit strategies do not per se aim at breaking up a multi-
level system, but rather strengthening sub-level units’ autonomy through
self-rule capacities. Hard exit strategies like secession, however, put at
risk not only the integrity of the polity but also societal peace. Like in
cases of exclusive nationalism or protectionism, exit strategies start from
the premise that regaining control through boundary closure is possi-
ble and desirable. Exit strategies may result from failed efforts to restore
trust and confidence in the responsiveness of the multilevel order. More
often than not, exit succeeds voice. Voice, in turn, comprises strategies
to improve the relationship through communicating complaints, griev-
ances and demands for institutional reforms. This may also be achieved
through shared rule. Rather than deploying unilateralism, actors accord-
ingly seek to develop consultative, co-operative or even collaborative
modes of interaction to address problems. Addressing voice through
proactive boundary governance may thus prevent the mobilization of
exit strategies. The mechanisms of loyalty, exit and voice in processes of
boundary re-drawing provide thus a powerful tool for describing, under-
standing and explaining configurations and dynamics of MLG in vari-
ous settings and historical periods. It is this rather broad framework that
builds the rationale for assembling contributions on rather diverse fields
and instances of MLG, as displayed below.

Multiple Perspectives of Multilevel Governance

With the above conceptual outline in mind, this book provides an argu-
ment for the broad applicability of basic notions of multilevel dynamics
which can be used to cross-fertilize different strands of research in polit-
ical science. Those different strands of research share common interests:
10 N. BEHNKE, J. BROSCHEK AND J. SONNICKSEN

in processes, institutions, and power structures that frame the coordi-

nation of joint decisions and actions in complex political architectures.
Together, the following contributions aim at describing patterns and
trajectories of change of those architectures and at theorizing condi-
tions and consequences of those dynamics. Consequently, those research
strands can greatly profit from acknowledging the common body of con-
cepts and pieces of theory. This edited book highlights those common-
alities and thus advances the broader use of an encompassing conceptual
framework to understand and explain how governing works in a complex
world.
The following section delineates the types of empirical puzzles and
analytical problems that pertain to the different perspectives on MLG.
They have been taken up by the contributors in their empirical and con-
ceptual analyses of various aspects of multilevel governance and structure
this edited volume.

Governance Beyond Typical State Actors

Contributions in this section address aspects of governance within the
modern state. But who or what is ‘the state’, and how does ‘it’ act? In
the classic ‘Weberian’ theory, the state is marked by the exercise of a legal
monopoly of power and a hierarchical organization not only of the state
apparatus, but also of the relationship between ‘the state’ and society.
‘The state’ steers society in a top-down perspective; i.e. by setting regu-
lations and incentives, or nudging its citizens to act in a desired way. In
practice, however, the state was never as omnipotent as that theory sug-
gested. The empirical underpinning of this insight, alongside worldwide
trends of dis-empowering state sovereignty, contributed to the ascent
of the notion of ‘governance’ as an umbrella term for capturing diverse
trends in public policy- and decision-making or the production of pub-
lic goods beyond the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the state (Benz
and Dose 2010; Mayntz 2006). It highlights precisely this diversifica-
tion in the modes of providing public tasks and services. Negotiations,
networks and market-like mechanisms complement interactions among
state actors, between state and non-state actors across or between state
and society representatives. This long-term perspective on the interaction
between transformations of the state and the emergence of governance
as an analytical tool is highlighted in Arthur Benz’ contribution (see also
Benz 2008, 2012b).
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE RELEVANCE OF STUDYING … 11

In public administration research, while governance as networks was

a widespread way of interpreting the notion of governance (Schneider
2010; Rhodes 1997), coordination research also discovered the value
of the concept for analysing the various coordination relations within
the public sector and between the public and the private sector (Peters
2015). This is the focus of Nathalie Behnke’s contribution. In pol-
icy and implementation research, the concept of the ‘cooperative state’
gained prominence (Benz 1994; Dose 1997), regarding the observa-
tion that e.g. regulatory standards for environmental protection are not
always imposed unilaterally and hierarchically, but rather negotiated
with industries and lobby groups (Töller 2012). Nicolai Dose adds new
considerations and evidence to this topic in his contribution. Increasing
variation of actors involved and modes for decision-making begs, how-
ever, questions of legitimacy and accountability for executive action. The
normative consequences of increasingly complex decision situations for
administrative actors guided by unclear values and norms is the subject of
Wolfgang Seibel’s contribution.

Multilevel Configurations and Actors

Multilevel politics is fraught with considerable complexities resulting
from various interdependencies that exist between jurisdictions. As a
consequence, actors at different levels of government, from municipal
over local and regional to the national—and sometimes the suprana-
tional—levels, need to take those complexities into account in their strat-
egies for policy-making. Contributions assembled in this section bring
to the fore core challenges actors from different scales encounter when
engaging in a multilevel environment. A basic condition for the inter-
action of actors at different levels of government is the vertical power
distribution. Claims for authority in specific policy fields can be dis-
puted or altered in the long run. In their contribution, Dietmar Braun
and Johanna Schnabel identify unresolved authority conflicts in specific
policy fields as an important trigger for dynamic change in MLG. They
argue that the long-term stability of MLG structures mainly depends
on the modes of interaction that actors choose to solve such conflicts of
authority.
Classic studies of comparative federalism typically focus on interac-
tions between the federal and the regional levels, but municipal and local
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
holes through the deck into the deck beam and secure them with
three 1¹⁄₄-in. No. 10 screws. Bore three holes along the gunwale on
each side and turn three 1¹⁄₄-in. No. 10 screws into the deck.

A Center Thwart

To strengthen and stiffen the hull a center thwart, or cross bar,

should be run across the canoe amidships. A piece of oak or ash, ³⁄₈
in. thick and tapering from 2 in. in the center to 1 in. at the ends,
should be screwed to the lower side of the gunwale. Although not
exactly essential, it is a good plan to run another thwart across the
canoe just back of the forward seat, and a rear thwart some 3 ft.
forward of the rear seat, or paddling bar. This will make the craft very
stiff when a heavy load is carried, and likewise prevent the lightly
constructed hull from sagging, or “hogging,” when stored for the
winter.

Fig. 13
The Manner of Shaping the Ends of the Canvas to Fit over the Canoe Ends

Applying the Canvas

The canvas is put on with marine glue, the black kind being the
best for this particular purpose. Before gluing the canvas, lay it
smoothly on the hull and trim so that it will fold nicely at the stems,
as shown in Fig. 13. Melt the glue in a can over a moderately hot fire
and spread it on one side of the canvas with a stiff brush. Of course,
the glue will be too thick to spread evenly, but be sure to apply it as
evenly as possible, and touch every bit of the canvas with a fairly
heavy coating of glue. Lay the glued canvas in place, and iron with a
moderately hot flatiron. This melts the glue, and the canvas will
adhere smoothly to the planking. Finish by tacking the edge of the
canvas along the edge of the gunwales, and fold the canvas as
smoothly as possible at the stem, and tack in place, running the line
of tacks exactly down the center line of the stem.

Fenders or Covering Strips

Fenders of ¹⁄₂-in. round molding may be tacked on to cover the

edge of the canvas, or a strip, 1 in. wide, may be sawed from the
same material as the planking and tacked to cover the edge by using
1¹⁄₄-in. brads every 2 or 3 in. along the edge.

Stem Bands and Outside Keel

The stem bands may be made from wood if desired and bent to
shape, but the brass oval stem or bang iron, ³⁄₈ in. wide, makes a
stronger and better finish. The wood stem band should be about ³⁄₈
in. square, and rounded on the outside. Put this on with 1¹⁄₄-in. brads
and fasten the brass band with ³⁄₄-in. screws.
The outside keel may or may not be used, according to
preference. It strengthens the canoe to a certain extent and keeps
the bottom from many a scratch while pulling out. The usual outside
keel is about 1 in. wide and ¹⁄₂ in. thick, of oak or ash, and tapered at
the stems to the width of the stem bands, which are screwed on over
it. The most serviceable keel is about 2¹⁄₂ in. wide in the center, and
tapers to fit the bands at either end. When made of ³⁄₄-in. oak, or
ash, it makes a splendid protection for the bottom of the hull,
especially when the craft is used in rocky waters. Unlike the narrow
keel, the flat keel makes the canoe easier to turn with the paddle, but
any form of keel will add several pounds to the weight of the craft
and is for this reason often omitted.
 Painting the Canoe

The canvas should be given a coat of shellac before the paint is

applied. This makes it waterproof. Then four coats of paint are
applied to fill the fibers of the canvas. To make a smooth finishing
coat, rub down the second and third coats with fine sandpaper. The
entire woodwork of the canoe should be finished with three coats of
good-quality outside spar varnish.
A slatted grating, made of soft-pine lattice stuff, about 1¹⁄₈ in. wide
and 1¹⁄₄ in. thick, will afford protection to the bottom of the canoe. For
summer use this is desirable, but may be omitted on long trips and
when soft footwear is worn. The grating should not be fastened to
the ribs, but the parallel strips screwed, or nailed, to cross strips,
curved to fit the contour of the canoe’s bottom. The grating should
extend from well under the stern seat up to the stem splice in the
bow, and should be nicely tapered to make a neat appearance. By
fastening two or three little blocks of wood so that they will extend up
between the slats, one may screw small brass buttons into these
blocks to keep the slatted floor in place, thus making it easily
removable when washing out the canoe.
 A Ring-and-Egg Trick
This trick consists in borrowing a ring and wrapping it in a
handkerchief from which it is made to disappear, to be found in an
egg, taken from a number in a plate.
Obtain a wedding ring and sew it into one corner of a
handkerchief. After borrowing a ring, pretend to wrap it in the center
of the handkerchief, but instead wrap up the one concealed in the
corner, retaining the borrowed one in the hand. Before beginning the
performance, place in the bottom of an egg cup a small quantity of
soft wax. When getting the cup, slip the borrowed ring into the wax in
an upright position. An egg is then chosen by anyone in the
audience. This is placed in the egg cup, the ring in the bottom being
pressed into the shell. With a button hook break the top of the shell
and fish out the ring. The handkerchief is then taken out to show that
the ring has vanished.
 Lock for Gasoline Tank on a Launch

Filler-Pipe Cover Lock to Prevent the Theft of Gasoline from a Motorboat

Having trouble by thefts of gasoline from the tank in my launch, I

made the following device to prevent them, which proved very
effective. A strap hinge, about 12 in. long, was procured, and on one
wing, near the outer end, I fastened a staple made of a large nail,
and near the center a large hole was drilled to fit over the pipe, or
opening, to the tank. The other wing of the hinge was bent to the
shape shown, and an oak block was fastened in the bend with wood
screws. A hole was bored in the block to fit over the end of the pipe.
A slot was cut in the same wing at the end to receive the staple. In
turning the wing over to cover the pipe end, the staple was brought
into position for a padlock. After locking the device, most of the
screws are covered so that it is almost impossible to remove them
without taking off the lock.—Contributed by Stephen H. Freeman,
Klamath Falls, Oregon.
A Quick-Acting Bench Vise
A Quick-Acting Vise Made of Hard Wood for the Home Worker’s Bench
 For those who desire a quick-acting vise and cannot afford the
price of a manufactured one, I designed the vise shown in the
illustration. A detail is given of each part, with dimensions, so that it
is not difficult to make it from hard wood. The roll A binds the vise so
that it remains rigid, while the cam in front gives the necessary play,
to release or tighten as preferred. The clamp jaw B is pivoted so that
it swings loose, thus making it fit any surface that may not be parallel
with its opposite side. In releasing the stock, the cam is first turned,
and then the front part of the vise is pulled up to relieve the roll A.
The front jaw can be then moved back and forth to take stock of any
size desired. As soon as the stock is placed, the roll A falls into place
and clamps the jaw arm C.—Contributed by J. C. Hansen, Maywood,
Ill.

¶A practical vacuum will raise water 30 feet.

 How To Build
A Canoe
By Stillman Taylor
PART II
Sailing the Open Paddling Canoe

S ailing and its recreations are afforded the owner of an open

paddling canoe, for a satisfactory sailing rig may be provided at
small cost. A regulation sailing outfit may be purchased, but it is
rather costly, and if the canoeist cannot use a sail frequently,
purchasing an outfit is unduly expensive. A sailing rig may be
constructed even by one of only moderate skill, who will devote a
few hours to it. The specifications given, if carefully followed, will
enable one to make a sailing rig as serviceable as a ready-made
outfit, and at about one-half the cost.
The specifications and list of material for a sailing outfit suitable for
a 16-ft. open canoe are as follows:
1 piece bamboo, 1¹⁄₂ in. in diameter, 6 ft. 10 in. long, for mast.
2 pieces bamboo fishing rod, 1 in. at butt, 10 ft. long.
1 piece, cedar or white pine, 5 ft. long, 4 in. wide, and ⁷⁄₈ in. thick, for leeboard
thwart.
 2 pieces, cedar or pine, 28 in. long, 10 in. wide, and ³⁄₈ in. thick, for mast
thwart.
1 piece, cedar or pine, 27¹⁄₂ in. long, 3¹⁄₂ in. wide, and ³⁄₄ in. thick, for mast
thwart.
1 piece, cedar or pine, 5 in. long, 2¹⁄₂ in. wide, and 1 in. thick, for mast step.
8 yd. unbleached cotton sheeting, 1 yd. wide, for making sail.
30 ft. ¹⁄₄-in. cotton rope, for halyard and main sheet.
4 brass lantern-board hooks, for clamping mast thwart and leeboard thwart to
canoe.
2 brass stove bolts, 3 in. long and ⁵⁄₁₆ in. diameter, with washers and thumb
nuts, for clamping leeboards at desired angle.
1 brass single-boom jaw for canoe, 2 in. long, for keeping boom on mast.
3 brass screw eyes, 1¹⁄₂ in. long with ¹⁄₂-in. eye, one for halyard, two for spars.
1 brass split ring, 1¹⁄₂ in., for fastening ends of spars together.
1 brass “S” hook, 1³⁄₄ in. long, for fastening ends of spars.
In converting the paddling canoe for sailing, it is desirable that it be
unmarred, as far as possible. The rig described represents the result
of experiments with various arrangements, and has been found to be
safe and convenient. The original outfit has been in use for six years
and will still serve for some time.
The lateen rig is best for an open canoe, because a shorter mast
is required for the same sail area. An open craft is less suited for
carrying sail than one which is decked fore, aft, and amidships. It is
not safe to rig a canoe too heavily, and the rig described has been
found to be well proportioned.
Bamboo is best for the mast, because it is lighter and tougher than
a solid wood spar of the same dimensions, and is readily procured.
Dealers in rugs use bamboo of 1¹⁄₂ to 2-in. diameter on which to roll
carpets, and it may usually be purchased of them.
Cut the bamboo to a length of 6 ft. 10 in., and whittle a wooden
plug, about 3 in. long, tapering it so that it will wedge firmly inside,
taking care not to split the cane. Bore a small hole through the cane
2 in. from the top, plug it and fix a screw eye into the plug. Drive
small brads through the cane into the plug to prevent the former from
splitting. A brass ferrule fitted over the end of the bamboo will make
a strong and neat finish.
 The sail is made in the form of a triangle and measures 9 ft. on
each side. It is best to have it sewed on a machine. The sail is
bighted with parallel strips, or folds, ¹⁄₂ in. wide, spaced 6 in. apart,
as shown at the left in the illustration. First cut the canvas to the
approximate size and shape by laying the spars over it and marking
the outline with a pencil. Next sew the separate widths together,
lapping one edge over the other about ¹⁄₂ in., and sewing close to
both edges. The bights or folds run at an angle and parallel with the
loose ends of the leech of the sail. The sail should then be reinforced
at the corners by sewing segments of cloth at these points. Along the
edges which are to be lashed to the spars, fold over a strip of canvas
and sew it to make a 1-in. hem. Run a ¹⁄₂-in. tape into the fold along
the leech while sewing the hem. This tape is fastened to the spar at
each end, to take up the slack caused by the stretching of the sail
after use, thus preventing that bugbear of sailors—a flapping leech.
 Sailing and Its Recreations are Afforded the Owner of an Open
Paddling Canoe, for a Satisfactory Sailing Rig may be Provided at
Small Cost. The Canoe Is Practically Unmarred, yet the Sailing
Outfit is Installed Substantially and may be Removed Quickly. The
Canoe Is Shown Running Nearly Free—before the Wind—and the
Leeboards are Therefore Only Partly Submerged

The mast thwart is made as shown at the right in the illustration,

and has a hole cut in the center to fit the mast. It is also provided
with two lantern-board hooks, one at each end, with which to clamp
the thwart to the gunwales. The mast is supported at the bottom by
means of the mast step, which is a block of wood, shaped as shown
to give a neat appearance. It is fastened to the grating, or to the ribs
if no grating is used.
The leeboard thwart is also shown in the sketch, at the right. The
short upright ends are set at an angle so that they conform to the
curve of the canoe and wedge the thwart into place immediately aft
of the mast. The ends are grooved to fit the thwart and fastened with
screws. A carriage bolt is fitted through each end piece and provided
with a wing nut, which holds the leeboard in place on each side. The
leeboards may thus be adjusted at the desired angle by fixing them
with wing nuts. No dimensions are given, for it is obvious that they
will vary on different styles and sizes of canoes. A finish in keeping
with that of the canoe should be applied. Smooth all the work as
carefully as possible with sharp tools and sandpaper it lightly. Three
coats of spar varnish will give a satisfactory finish.
The sail is hoisted by running the halyard through the screw eye at
the top of the mast, until the gaff spar is close to the mast top, as
illustrated.
The boom jaw is fastened on the boom, with the open end 18 in.
from the forward end of the boom. This will permit the forefoot of the
sail to extend forward of the mast. By tying the halyard at various
points along the gaff, the point of balance may be found. For the
sake of safety the halyard should not be tied to the forward thwart,
but run under it to the stern within easy reach of the canoeist. The
main sheet should never be made fast, but the rope merely looped
around the thwart and held in the hand or beneath the foot, so that it
may be released quickly if a puff of wind should strike the sail.
Steering is done with a paddle. This method is more convenient
than a rudder where the single sail is used. The paddle is always
used on the lee side—away from the wind—and the wake keeps the
blade close to the side of the canoe, without much effort on the part
of the person guiding it. When turning about make the regular
paddling stroke, but finish it by thrusting the blade of the paddle
away from the canoe. This will tend to keep the canoe in its course,
and the paddle will not be drawn across the wake, which would
affect the headway of the craft.
The lower the weight is placed in a canoe, or boat, the greater will
be its stability. Hence, in sailing a canoe, sit on the floor of the craft,
and when turning about, turn against the wind and not with it. The
experienced canoeist can shift his course readily, but the novice
must be cautious, even in a moderate breeze. It would be well to sail
in shallow water and to wear only bathing costume when learning to
sail a canoe. When tacking and sailing close-hauled the leeboard is
the most effective, but as the boards are thin both may be kept down
without greatly reducing the speed. When running before the wind
both boards may be raised to give the greatest speed.

¶Paint may be readily removed from windows by applying a cloth

dipped in hot vinegar or acetic acid. This applied to brushes will
soften them.
 How To Build
A Canoe
By Stillman Taylor
PART III
Fitting a Motor into a Paddling Canoe

A stanchly built canoe of sufficient length and beam may be

converted into a light, serviceable, and convenient power boat by
the installation of a light-weight motor of about 2 hp. While the craft
thus becomes less available for shallow waters and cannot be used
so readily on trips where portages are necessary, a power canoe has
advantages in that longer trips may be undertaken with less regard
for weather conditions. Greater speed and the fact that physical
power need not be expended also increase the value and range of
operations of such a craft.
Unless a motor of extremely light weight is procured, a canoe of
frail construction and less than 16 ft. long is not likely to stand the jar
of the driving mechanism. The canoe illustrated in the page plate is
18 ft. long, of 36-in. beam, and strongly planked, decked, and
braced. A canoe of even broader beam would tend to give more
stability in rough water, and if it is desired to transport heavy
camping packs, or other material, in the craft, this factor should be
observed particularly. Likewise, the depth and draft must be
considered, as the carrying capacity and seaworthiness of a canoe
depend in part on these factors. The fitting of the various parts of the
mechanism and accessories must be done with the aim of balancing
the load evenly. If properly disposed, the weight of these parts
should tend to lower the center of gravity of the canoe, thus
rendering it more stable.
The actual work of installing the motor and fittings should be
preceded by careful planning and the making of a full-size diagram
of the stern portion of the canoe as rebuilt. Too much care cannot be
taken in this work, as, if it is neglected, the craft may be rendered
unsafe, or the motor and fittings may not operate satisfactorily. The
motor should be set in the stern, as shown in the illustration, as this
will permit the use of a minimum of shafting and other fittings which
must be accommodated. The exact location of the motor may vary
with canoes and engines of different types. This should be tested out
by placing the motor in the canoe and noting the effect on its balance
in the water. For a canoe of the dimensions indicated, and a light-
weight motor, 5 ft. from the stern is a satisfactory position. The motor
should be placed as low in the canoe as possible, allowing the
flywheel and crank case sufficient clearance below.
A convenient method of operation is as follows: Place the canoe
on boxes, or sawhorses, taking care that it is properly supported
about 2 ft. from the ground, or floor. Take measurements directly
from the canoe, or part to be fitted, whenever convenient. Procure
two sheets of paper, 30 in. wide and 7 ft. long; mark one “diagram”
and the other “templates,” and use the former for the full-size detail
and the other for the making of templates for curved or irregular
parts.
Begin the diagram by drawing the base line AB, Fig. 3. This is the
lower line of the engine bed and the upper surface of the ribs. Draw
the line CD perpendicular to the base line, and 18 in. from the left
end of the sheet. The point C is the center of the stern end of the
driving shaft. The dimensions of parts are not given, except in
special instances, since they must be obtained from the particular
canoe and other parts entering into the construction. Indicate the
layer of ribs E, the planking F, and the keel G. Using the template
sheet, cut a template or pattern for the curved stern. This may be
readily and accurately done by fixing a straightedge to the keel and
permitting it to extend to A. Rest the long edge of the sheet on the
straightedge when fitting the template to the curve. Use the template
as a guide in marking the curve on the diagram, as at HJ. The curve
K, of the stern decking, may be indicated similarly.
Determine the distance the motor is to be set from the stern and
indicate it by the perpendicular line L. Measuring from the base line,
indicate the height of the center of the motor shaft from the floor, as
at M. This should be made as low as possible, permitting sufficient
clearance for the flywheel and the crank case. Draw a straight line
from C to M, which will thus indicate the center line of the driving
shaft. This line is fundamental in determining the dimensions and
placing of certain parts and fittings, and should be established with
extreme care. The size and exact position of the engine bed N may
now be indicated. Its dimensions, given in detail in the perspective
sketch, Fig. 5, are suggestive only. They may be varied in order to
provide proper bearing on the floor, and so that the bolts holding the
bed may pass through ribs. The cross brace at the forward end is
important, and should be fitted carefully over a rib. The upper line of
the engine bed must not be confounded with the center line of the
shaft, for in many engines they are on a horizontal line when viewed
from the forward end, yet not necessarily so. The slant of the engine
bed must be made accurately, as any deflection from the angle of
the center line of the shaft will disarrange the installation.
The shaft log O may next be indicated and a template made for
use in guiding the bit when boring the hole for the shaft through it.
The template used for the curve HJ may be altered by drawing the
shaft log on it at the proper place. The point P, from which the bit is
to be started when the shaft log is fixed into place, should be
indicated and the center line of the shaft extended to Q, may then be
used as a guide for the bit. If the homemade type of bearing R is
used, it should be indicated on the diagram. A metal bearing may be
made, or a suitable one obtained from dealers in marine hardware.
In the latter case it will probably be necessary to block up the bottom
of the canoe in order to provide a flat, horizontal bearing surface for
the bearing flange.
The rudder and other parts, which are not directly connected with
the motive-power unit, may be indicated in detail on the diagram or
be made from sketches of a smaller scale. Paper patterns, made full
size, offer a convenient method of outlining the parts of the engine
bed, the rudder, and other irregular pieces. When the diagram is
complete, measurements may be transferred directly from it without
reducing them to figures, and, wherever possible, parts should be
fitted to it.
The shaft log, shaft bearing, and engine bed may be made of oak,
or other strong hard wood. It will be found desirable to have the
engine bed complete before an attempt is made to fit the shaft and
its connections. It is made of 1¹⁄₂-in. stock, bolted together with lag
screws and fixed firmly into the canoe with bolts. The heads of the
bolts should be provided with cotton and red-lead packing, and care
should be taken that the bolts pass through ribs.
The shaft log should be fixed into place before it is bored. Bolts
may be passed through it and fastened on the inside if there is room
for drawing up the nuts in the stern. Large screws may be used to
aid in the fastening and smaller screws may be used from the inside.
The lower rudder support will also aid in holding the log in place, and
the iron straps S, Fig. 3, will insure its rigidity. This is an important
point in the construction, as if the log is not fixed positively, the
thrashing of the propeller will soon loosen it.