Measuring success of constitutional reforms : evidence from territorial reforms in eight western democracies

Abstract

Studies of constitutional reforms so far have equated formal ratification with a successful reform. The paper goes beyond this narrow focus by adding substantive success as a second dimension based on two indicators: degree of agenda fulfilment and degree to which the reform contributes to solve the constitutional problem. Analysing territorial reforms in unitary or federal states, we distinguish two types of problems—group and efficiency problems. The comparative analysis of formal and substantive success demonstrates that first, reforms can be at least partly successful in terms of substance, although they may have failed formally; second, fulfilling the reform agenda seems to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for solving the constitutional problem at stake; third, cases with group problems score higher on both indicators, thus being more successful than cases with efficiency problems. Furthermore, the characteristics of the two most successful cases suggest that opportunities for participation, open dialogue and consensus building play an important role in explaining the results.