evidence that policy learning does occur under specific circumstances, that is, if policy successis communicated and channelled.

At the same time, the study leaves some questions open. My main concern regards the overallresearch design, as the structure of the analysis is not always clear. This holds especially for thegeneral chapters three and the first part of chapter four, as the added value of the very rich infor-mation provided in these chapters to the overall analysis remains too vague. The study exhibitstraces of a multi-method research design (cf. Brady et al. 2006), and a more systematic applica-tion of this logic would have benefited the internal coherence of the empirical analysis. Com-pared to chapters three and four, the main quantitative analysis in chapter six is rather short. Forinstance, a more critical and comprehensive discussion and interpretation of the quantitativeresults, especially the counter-intuitive ones, would have been interesting. Additional robustnesstests based on alternative operationalisations or including additional control variables (e.g. can-tonal mortality rates to account for structural [dis-]similarities in the cantons) would haveallowed assessing the robustness of the findings in a more comprehensive way. Furthermore, ref-erence to additional networks, especially informal ones, would better satisfy the picture of a“messy political world” referred to by the author, than the rather clinical focus on one singletype of network. Finally, the analogy of “Bayesian updating” evoked by the author to describelearning processes seems to suggest that Bayesian inference, for instance in terms of Bayesianmultilevel modelling (cf. Jackman 2009), would be a particularly fruitful approach for the analy-sis of policy learning.

These critical remarks should not impair the relevance of this book as a contribution to theadvance of the research on policy diffusion in federal states. Based on the major finding of thebook that joint membership in intergovernmental institutions enhances the spread of best prac-tices, Katharina F€uglister correctly concludes that for the states-as-policy-laboratories metaphorto work, it is crucial that information about policies is available to others. For all researcherswho are interested in the moderating role of institutions and policy diffusion in fields in whichharmonization is politically difficult to achieve but cooperation necessary, this book provides asource of inspiration.

Anita ManatschalUniversity of Berne

References

Brady, H.E., et al. (2006). ‘Toward a Pluralistic Vision of Methodology’, Political Analysis 14(3): 353–368.

Jackman, S. (2009). Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences. New York: Wiley.

Power Sharing in Deeply Divided PlacesMcEvoy, Joanne O’Leary, Brendan (Eds)University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013,436p., ISBN 978-0-8122-4501-1

With Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places Joanne McEvoy and Brendan O’Leary have puttogether a volume that will be of particular interest to scholars of conflict and post-conflict socie-

Book Reviews 511

© 2014 Swiss Political Science Association Swiss Political Science Review (2014) Vol. 20(3): 498–514

ties, peace-building practitioners and international negotiators. The contributions included in thevolume are dedicated to power-sharing theory, which holds that severely divided polities are bestmanaged if all groups participate in the governing structures. Without implying unity among thedifferent contributions, the volume’s intent is “to illuminate the current stage and range of schol-arship on power sharing across multiple disciplines” (p.387).

The title is noteworthy. So far, the polities of interest have been called divided, shared, frag-mented, heterogeneous, or plural societies. But, according to O’Leary, “it is a mistake to pre-sume that a divided place contains just one society” (p.5), which makes the term “place” moreappropriate. However, the latter implies the acknowledgement of divisions so fundamental thatan all-encompassing social construct is not even theoretically conceivable. This is hardly justi-fied. Power-sharing advocates agree that commitment to the state is key for their model to func-tion efficiently. The term “society” precisely encompasses this ideal holding the polity togetherwithout necessarily presupposing unificatory elements beyond political institutions.

The 16 contributions in the volume do not unanimously commit to the new terminology,which is hardly surprising considering that they do not follow a common research design or ana-lytical framework. In this respect, the book is both an introduction to power-sharing theory andan outline of contemporary issues discussed in the discipline. Without following the book’sstructure too closely, one may group the different contributions into four thematic foci. The firstone deals with historical arguments. Benjamin Braude, analysing the legacies of the Ottomanand Safavid empires (both of which had power-sharing institutions), argues that religion may beemployed as a source for compromise rather than conflict. While this may be true on some level,contemporary religious distinctions are often the foundation of societal divisions. Admittedly,such divisions do not necessarily reflect theology; rather, they emphasise the importance ofpower struggles within the respective political leaderships. Historically, power struggles, as Ran-dall Collins explains, challenge the existing system and lead to the extension of political influ-ence, especially when the “state” is weakened. They are thus the historical substrate of powersharing. Following Collins, democracy historically developed as a result of increases in thedegree of collegially shared power, the franchise, and, as a consequence of those two, politicalrights. Geopolitical success later legitimised the newly introduced power-sharing structure andset the polity on its path towards “democratisation”. However, while one may believe that geo-political developments affected the process, geopolitics is hardly the sole explanatory variablefor the proliferation of democracy.

The second group of articles deals with political actors. Ronald Wintrobe uses rational choicein order to predict whether a conflict party in a divided society would resort to violence in orderto achieve its goals. Taking the Israel-Palestine conflict as an illustrative example, he shows howparticular events can promote adversarial or accommodative behaviour. Unfortunately, the modelis constrained by the assumption of a unified political leadership and, consequently, a unifiedreaction to such events thusly neglecting that intra-group quarrel may significantly influence aparty’s willingness to use violence. Nevertheless, leaders (or political elites) are a key componentin any power-sharing argument. Ed Cairns, approaching the subject from the perspective ofsocial psychology, sees power sharing as only a short-term solution to Northern Ireland’s sectari-anism and argues for promoting contact between the rival communities as the foundation of anew, common identity. He especially emphasises the role of political leaders and non-segregatedschools in this process. Successful policies of integration are another promoter of inter-group sol-idarity. After discussing several more or less successful institutional arrangements in divides cit-ies, Scott A. Bollens argues that such structural options are not enough for resolving urbantensions; what is needed is “the capacity and means to implement programs and produce out-comes that make a meaningful difference to all groups in divided societies” (p.358).

512 Book Reviews

© 2014 Swiss Political Science Association Swiss Political Science Review (2014) Vol. 20(3): 498–514

But political leaders may lack the incentives to promote such cross-communal relationshipsamong their followers as their political powers is, at least to some degree, based precisely on thesegregation of the respective electorates. Desegregation, while undoubtedly desirable in terms ofpacifying a conflict, may fall victim to the political threat of cross-communal candidates, whichcould ultimately even put an end to the power-sharing system itself. A similar objection couldbe raised with regards to Colin Irwin’s suggestion to poll the public in order to determine whatconstitutional change or political post-conflict settlement would be acceptable to large parts ofthe population. While the arguments for such polling seem indeed compelling, majority supportfor a solution does neither mean that the elites will settle on this proposal nor that such a pro-posal is indeed desirable from a normative point of view.

Elite commitment, preferably mirroring public consent, remains crucial for power sharing tofunction. Analysing internationally imposed power-sharing systems in the Balkans, Florian Bie-ber concludes that acceptance of the political settlement is key: “If the cost of disengaging frompower-sharing institutions is low owing to alternative power bases and limited internationalengagement, and the joint institutional project lacks legitimacy, the risk of power sharing ishigh.” (p.324-5). Under certain conditions, power sharing may not only lead to secession or inef-ficiency, but never be established in the first place. As Liam Anderson argues based on the situa-tion in the Iraqi province of Kirkuk, power sharing does not always provide enough incentivefor its introduction. Where the majority-minority situation corresponds to a 60-40 ratio, whyshould the majority agree to a power-sharing system? In Anderson’s view, systemic incentivesare not enough and new ones need to be created to succeed.

A third group of articles addresses conceptual issues in power-sharing theory. The respectiveauthors agree that power sharing is preferable to systems of majority rule in divided societies;yet power sharing can have different forms. A key ingredient is the electoral system. BernardGrofman offers both an easily understandable introduction to different electoral rules as well asa normative framework for assessing these methods. The set of normative criteria – “realizingfirst-place choices, implementing majority choices, finding widely acceptable choices, and avoid-ing picking alternatives at the bottom of the preferences of a large number of voters” (p.87) – isnot exhaustive, for it only focuses on the imperative to best represent the will of the peoplewhereas adjacent and equally defensible principles, like the inclusion of minorities, are onlyintroduced in passing. Since an all-encompassing normative evaluation was not Grofman’s inten-tion, this is not a critique but a suggestion of what could follow his important contribution.

Using theoretical examples, Grofman furthermore shows how specific assumptions about thesocio-political context may change the merits of certain electoral rules. The latter should thusnot be debated in abstract terms, but preferably with reference to specific circumstances. Thesame point is emphasised by Allison McCulloch. She assesses the track record of the so-calledalternative vote system, which allows voters to indicate preferences among candidates. Accord-ingly, this method will promote moderate behaviour only where “a preexistent level of [societal]heterogeneity and a preexistent level of moderation” (p.105) exist, whereas it will have thereverse effect in cases where they are absent.

Within the consociational model, the provision of group-based veto powers presents a particu-lar conceptual challenge as such powers may lead to political stalemates. Following JoanneMcEvoy, “veto rules have the potential to foster interethnic cooperation and constrain eliteintransigence” (p.272); yet in order to do so, a more refined mutual veto in terms of issues andprocedures is needed. While McEvoy insists that the institutional structure of the veto matters,she also shows that the commitment of the elites to the state is a crucial explanatory variable forits (non-)conciliatory usage. Actions by the political leadership are also emphasised by KrisDeschouwer and Philippe Van Parijs in their analysis of the Belgium electoral system. As of

Book Reviews 513

© 2014 Swiss Political Science Association Swiss Political Science Review (2014) Vol. 20(3): 498–514

now, the latter “offers insufficient incentives to display the spirit of accommodation that isneeded for a divided society to be smoothly governed” (p.113). The authors, as initiators of theso-called Pavia group, have therefore argued for the establishment of a state-wide electoral dis-tricts in order to fill some ten per cent of the seats in the federal parliament. While it is likelythat the Pavia group proposal will provide new incentives for state-wide cooperation among theparties and, in the long run, may even make government formation more easy, it remains to beseen whether the introduction of such a system will be politically feasible. In this respect, thespirit of accommodation seems rather a precondition than a result.

The forth group, finally, discusses new approaches to the challenge of divided societies.Alfred Stepan presents the concept of federacy as a way to give territorially segregated minori-ties in unitary states far-reaching autonomy competences while preserving the state as such anddiminishing secessionist tendencies. Samuel Issacharoff insists that courts may constrain majori-tarian power and thus stabilise democratic governance – provided the courts recognise their rolein this regard. As of now, such proposals lack conceptual and empirical clarity in terms of cate-gorisation and consequences. Courts in particular may endanger fragile power-sharing systems,as O’Leary points out. With such discussions being far from over, the present volume hugelyenriches the task in front of us.

Adis MerdzanovicUniversity of Zurich

514 Book Reviews

© 2014 Swiss Political Science Association Swiss Political Science Review (2014) Vol. 20(3): 498–514