Vetospieler in territorialen Verfassungsreformen

Why do decentralization reforms even under ideal reform conditions yield different results than originally intended by the actors involved? This study analyzes why the results of territorial constitutional reforms cannot be completely explained with the preferences of the veto players involved. It critically examines and refines core elements of veto player theory, the dominating paradigm of comparative institutionalism. Three case studies, devolution for Scotland and Wales 1998 and the French decentralization reform of 2003, demonstrate that in complex reform processes such as territorial reforms veto players’ preferences are shaped by three different factors: the power of actors without veto power, unstable veto players constellations and institutional momenta.