This is a rare thing indeed. Edited volumes tend to contain a hodgepodge of contributions only loosely centered around some theme. The hapless editors are too often left to finesse an introductory link among a series of articles that are, in fact, only vaguely related. In the present case, however, we have an edited volume planned and implemented around a clear vision. If not for the list of contributors (luminaries in the scholarship of German politics), one might easily take this book for a single-authored text.

The goal of Governance in Contemporary Germany is to reexamine an important concept in German politics and comparative politics more generally: Peter Katzenstein's semisovereign state. Katzenstein's original 1987 volume, Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semisovereign State, sought to explain why policy change in West Germany had been incremental, even after changes of government. He proposed that the structures of the West German state and society were not conducive to far-reaching policy shifts. His book illustrated how a decentralized state combined with highly centralized societal actors to make radical policy change nearly impossible. Katzenstein argued that three “institutional nodes”—political parties, cooperative federalism, and parapublic institutions—structured state–societal links in such a way that policy change was subject to the influence of both a range of societal actors and various actors within the state. He illustrated this interaction through an examination of six policy areas: economic management, industrial relations, social welfare, migrant workers, administrative reform, and university reform.

A great deal has happened in Germany since the publication of the landmark 1987 study. A decade and a half after German unification, with European integration much further along, the question is whether Katzenstein's model still holds up. Furthermore, he had argued that the incrementalism of West German policy making was a strength. By moving slowly and taking multiple interests into account, West Germany tended to produce sound policies. In the postunification era, two challenges to Katzenstein's take on German politics have emerged. First, under the motto “Berlin is not Bonn,” some scholars have argued that the new Germany would take its “rightful” place in international politics, in other words, that Germany would be more inclined to pursue its national interest and less inclined toward multilateralism. Domestically, according to this line of thought, the addition of the former East Germany, combined with European integration, would put such strain on the German model that the positive results of state–societal cooperation would be lost. In other words, the new Germany would no longer be semisovereign. By contrast, other scholars have argued that incrementalism would remain but that this style of policymaking would be detrimental, rather than beneficial, in a quickly changing, globalized world. In other words, the new Germany would still be semisovereign, but this would no longer be advantageous. Gridlock would replace incrementalism.

Governance in Contemporary Germany evaluates Katzenstein's model in light of the developments of the 1990s and 2000s. The upshot is that his model largely holds up, though there have been some significant changes, particularly in economic policy and social policy. One of the major strengths of the later book is that it closely follows the structure of Katzenstein's original volume. After the introductory chapter, the new book examines the three “institutional nodes” of policymaking: political parties, federalism, and parapublic institutions, then goes on to address most of the same policy areas that he originally investigated. University reform is dropped from the list as no longer sufficiently relevant. Two important new policy areas are added: environmental policy and European policy. The book also includes an important introductory chapter from Wade Jacoby on institutional transfer and how the unification process may have affected the validity of Katzenstein's model. Katzenstein himself contributes the concluding chapter.

The individual chapters are all worth reading, but I focus my remarks on some of the broader insights of the book. The three chapters on the institutional nodes are especially interesting. They point out that despite a great deal of continuity, specific changes are having important ramifications, mostly negative ones. In the chapter on party politics, Thomas Saalfeld finds that the increased frequency of Land elections and the fact that the national governing coalition has not often controlled the Bundesrat have made party politics more conflictual. In the chapter on federalism, Charlie Jeffery touches on a topic that recurs throughout the book. German society has become less centralized and less homogeneous. This shift in the societal half of the equation has a critical effect because the state must more frequently step into the void left by formerly more effective societal actors. Andreas Busch raises a second recurrent theme: The parapublic institutions are still functioning well as shock absorbers, but the quality of the policy in some cases is declining. The chapters on industrial policy and immigration also observe that the incremental policy style of the semisovereign state continues, but that this mode of policymaking is no longer effective in the face of vast societal change. Katzenstein's final chapter shines even in this excellent book.

One regrettable omission in both this volume and Katzenstein's original is gender relations and the role of women in German society and politics, themes addressed only tangentially in the chapters on economic policy and social policy. Gender relations is an area of German society that is undergoing significant change. Who would have thought, for example, that Katzenstein's use of feminine pronouns—controversial in 1987—would already have found justification in reality? Despite this oversight, this volume constitutes an absolute “must read” for scholars of German and European politics. It is also highly recommended for scholars of comparative politics more generally, particularly those interested in evolving state–societal balance.