Search results

The chapter attempts to evaluate the utility of applying multi-level governance outside of the EU, and also outside of the group of democratic states, to states that have defied the third wave of democratization and that are characterized by a so-called new authoritarianism. The case is the People’s Republic of China, and the focus falls on policy-making and implementation in the field of hydropower with special attention to the issue area of environmental protection.

The chapter draws on the notion of scales and indigenous Chinese governance concepts and brings these into a conversation with the concept of multi-level governance. Case studies on hydropower decision-making in China contribute empirical data in order to investigate the utility of multi-level governance in the Chinese governance context.

The chapter argues that if multi-level governance is to have utility in other cultural contexts it needs to move away from a consideration of pre-given scales as locus of authority and consider indigenous governance concepts and notions of scale, and it crucially needs to map power relationships in the making and implementation of policies in order to reach analytical depth.

The case of China shows that authoritarian regimes can be analysed in terms of multiple levels as authoritarianism no longer automatically implies strict top-down entities. Instead, autocracies can be highly fragmented and subject to complex decision-making processes that can arise during processes of administrative reform. This can lead to vibrant and reflexive systems of governance that exhibit adaptive skills necessary to ensure regime survival amidst a continuously diversifying society and changing external circumstances. As a consequence, a research programme looking at the new authoritarianism from a multi-level governance perspective has the capacity to uncover and describe new forms of governance, by bringing the concept into a conversation with indigenous governance concepts.

In China, informal networks between the energy bureaucracy and hydropower developers determine the hydropower decision-making process. This is particularly detrimental at a time when the Chinese government emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and social stability. Informal networks in which key government agencies are involved actively thwart the attempt of creating reliable institutions and more transparent and accountable processes of decision-making within the authoritarian governance framework.

The findings show the dominance of informal networks versus the formal decision-making process. This sidelines the environmental bureaucracy and fails to fully realize the importance of public input into the decision-making process as one potential element of institutionalized conflict resolution.

The chapter builds on existing multi-level governance approaches and fuses them with notions of scales and indigenous Chinese governance concepts in order to enable the applicability of the concept of multi-level governance outside of its area of origin. This advances the explanatory depth and theoretical reach of multi-level governance.

Organizational creativity and innovation are inherently complex phenomena, and subject to a myriad of broad contextual and social influences. As the evidence grows for the link between innovation and organizational effectiveness and, ultimately, organizational survival, there is no doubting the need for theoretical and practical advances in our understanding. The complex nature of these constructs, however, requires that such efforts utilize a multi-level lens. This chapter discusses key aspects of creativity and innovation in organizations, including fundamental construct definition issues, which underscore the need for a multi-level perspective. It also reviews extant theoretical perspectives for their contributions to a multi-level understanding, and the research in two key areas of social influence – group factors and leadership – that have received substantial attention in the organizational literature. The review and discussion of these areas reveal not only numerous advances, but also substantial limitations that must be resolved through more complex and comprehensive (i.e., multi-level) approaches. The chapter concludes with several recommendations intended to guide and inform future work in the organizational creativity and innovation field.

Most research issues in strategic management are essentially problem focused. To one extent or another, these problems often span levels of analysis, may align with different performance metrics, and likely hold different implications from various theoretical perspectives. Despite these variations, research has generally approached questions by taking a single perspective or by contrasting one perspective with a single alternative rather than exploring integrative implications. As such, very few efforts have sought to consider the performance implications of using combined, integrated, or multi-level perspectives. Given this reality, what actually constitutes “good” performance, how performance is effectively measured, and how performance measures align with different perspectives remain thorny problems in strategic management research. This paper discusses potential extensions by which strategic management research and theory might begin to address these conflicts. We first consider the multi-level nature of strategic management phenomena, focusing in particular on competitive advantage and value creation as core concepts. We next present three approaches in which strategic management theories tend to link levels of analysis (transaction, management, and atmosphere). We then examine the implications arising from these multi-level approaches and conclude with suggestions for future research.

In recent years, theory and research have been increasingly devoted to understanding organizational behavior in cross-cultural and global contexts, with particular attention being paid to the appropriateness of various human resources management (HRM) practices because practices that may be effective within one cultural context may not be effective in other cultural contexts. This chapter argues that a multi-level perspective is needed to explain the interplay between HRM practices and employee responses across cultural contexts. Specifically, the multi-level framework developed in this chapter elucidates the importance of fit between HRM practices, individual values, organizational values, and societal values. Societal values play a key role in the adoption of HRM practices, and the effectiveness of these HRM practices will depend largely on “fit” or alignment with the values of the societal culture in which the organization is operating. HRM practices also shape the collective responses of employees through organizational climate at the organizational level and through psychological climate at the individual level. For positive employee attitudes and responses to emerge, the climate created by the HRM practices must be aligned with societal and individual values. Building on these notions, the strength of the societal culture in which the organization is operating serves as a mechanism that links relationships between climate, value fit, and attitudes across levels of analysis. The chapter concludes with some recommendations for future research and implications for practice.

This chapter attempts to answer some of the questions raised in this volume, in particular: (1) provide a concise but precise definition of multi-level governance; (2) prove that it is a theoretical and not just a descriptive concept and (3) dispel some of the misconceptions associated with it, for example, that (a) multi-level governance underplays and conceals the exercise of power or (b) it is incompatible with democracy.

The chapter is correspondingly organized in four sections, preceded and followed by short introductory and concluding sections. The four sections address, respectively: (1) the definition of multi-level governance (MLG) (‘Solving the dependent variable problem’); (2) the causes that explain the emergence and diffusion of MLG arrangements (‘The contextual causes of MLG’); (3) the changes that it triggers in the manner in which power is deployed (‘The institutional consequences of MLG’); (4) the democratic implications of the diffusion of MLG arrangements (‘Are MLG arrangements democratic?’).

The methodology employed is mainly that of ‘conceptual analysis’ (Sartori, 1984), which implies that the connotational features (those features which minimally allow us to identify cases of MLG) of the concept are identified so that we can delimit the denotational extension of the concept (the universe of phenomena which can be identified as cases of MLG). This chapter contains a highly abridged version of this conceptual analysis, which is fully developed in Piattoni (2010a).

MLG denotes a growing class of policymaking arrangements characterized by the simultaneous activation of governmental and non-governmental actors at various jurisdictional levels. These arrangements have identifiable contextual causes, even if the precise contours of MLG arrangements depend on the capacity of the actors to mobilize arguments and people on behalf of their specific ideas, values and interest. The precise shape that these arrangements will take, therefore, depends on the mobilization capacity of the actors (and on the capacity of other actors to contain or delimit such mobilization). The causes of mobilization are mainly contextual, having to do with the increased complexity and overload of state activities and with the growing request for direct involvement on the part of civil society organizations. Both these trends induce states to seek joint solutions to common problems, hence MLG dynamics occur on three axes: a centre-periphery axis, a state-society axis, and a national-international axis which challenge, respectively, the centrality, the distinctiveness and the sovereignty of the state.

This conceptualization of MLG allows us to analyse the extent to which different policymaking arrangements respond to MLG logics and to understand which actors and which levels are mostly responsible for the particular configuration that obtains. This conceptualization of MLG, although here deployed in a purely discursive manner, could enable us to ‘measure’ the degree of institutional and political empowerment of subjects, other than central state actors, in various policy realms.

The most important social implication is the impact that MLG arrangements have on how democratic decision-making occurs, on what we mean by democracy, and on the societal perception of how contemporary democracies work. The chapter argues that trying to apply to MLG arrangements democratic criteria and standards that were developed for the unitary, distinctive and sovereign state is misleading and that we must rather develop an updated notion of democracy appropriate for the interconnected, multi-level context in which we live. The concept of ‘transnational democracy’ is cursorily offered as a promising direction for further reflection.

The chapter is wholly based on the long-term work and reflection of the author on MLG and on the scholarly contributions of the other authors of the volume.

This contribution argues that there is a fundamental problem for the multi-level governance (MLG) approach in that what the approach is trying to explain has never been fully agreed by the vast group of scholarship that references it. The chapter then examines and proposes that ideas and concepts from network governance, principal–agent (PA) and learning can provide the necessary micro foundations for the MLG approach.

The chapter examines and critiques the original MLG formulations and the later efforts at elaboration. It then reviews the literature and concepts for three public policy approaches that have been associated with European governance to see how core explanations can be elaborated upon in a multi-level context: network governance, principal–agent (PA) and learning.

This contribution suggests that co-ordination, and the resources that help maintain this co-ordination, is the key dependent variable that underpins the MLG approach. With multiple principals and multiple agents, operating at a number of levels of analysis, direct authority and control is harder to evoke. The key explanatory variable underpinning this MLG co-ordination is learning by the participants.

Researchers need to concentrate both their theoretical and empirical efforts in understanding the conditions that support multi-level governance and that sustain its effort.

The contribution outlines some of the key practical questions that policy-makers must face. Can they manage resources and induce learning from all the relevant public and private stakeholders to engage in the MLG effort?

Not only does an effective MLG process involve engaging a wide range of societal stakeholders, these stakeholders have to be persuaded to invest effort in learning about the nature of the governance system, the challenges of the policy problem and the implications of the efforts to resolve these problems.

This chapter isolates the fundamental lacuna at the heart of the MLG project and offers academics and practitioners a conceptual lens for building a clearer analytical structure for studying MLG.

In this chapter we respond to Hofmann and Jones and Kim, who provided insightful comments on our framework for conducting multi-level construct validation. We specifically address issues surrounding the meaning, structure, and function of multi-level constructs, extending our framework for validation of within-person constructs, and frog-pond effects. In so doing, we hope to clarify further the process of validating constructs across multiple levels of analysis.

This chapter discusses the strengths and challenges posed by the chapter by Aumann and Ostroff entitled, “Multi-Level Fit: An Integrative Framework for Understanding HRM Practices in Cross-Cultural Contexts.” In addition, this chapter proposes an alternative multi-level model of culture, which consists of structural and dynamic dimensions with culture's strength as a moderator of the top-down bottom-up dynamic processes. This model assumes that there is a fit between the value system and the HRM practices, as they represent two layers of culture – visible and less visible. Yet, the fit can be interrupted when HRM practices are transferred across cultures. The chapter further discusses when HRM practices are rejected and when they are accepted despite the misfit.

What we know is that the concept of cultural distance is frequently used, hotly debated and for many intuitively appealing. Suffering from a series of illusionary properties, it is argued to have outlived its usefulness. What we need to know is how to conceptualize the complexity of culture as a multi-dimensional, multi-level concept, taking context into account to measure quality rather than quantity (or distance). It is our ambition to do justice to the idea that cultural diversity not only leads to friction or problem creation, but also to enrichment and to generation of solutions. We discuss cultural conceptualizations and suggest cultural profiling and cultural positioning as alternative ways of comparing and contrasting critical cultural differences.