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.

Existing work on multi-level governance (MLG) has concentrated on decentring of the state (e.g., Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. Political Quarterly, 65(2), 138–141; Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. London: Open University Press; Rhodes, R. A. W. (2008). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organisation Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264); growth of non-state actors in governing (e.g., Crouch, 2004; Jessop, B. (2004). Multi level governance and multi-level metagovernance-changes in the European Union as integral moments in the transformation and re-orientation of contemporary statehood. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press); classifying different types of governance (e.g., type 1 and type 2 MLG – see Hooghe & Marks, 2003; Ongaro, E., Massey, A., Holzer, M., & Wayenberg, E. (Eds.). (2010). Governance and intergovernmental relations in the European Union and the United States: Theoretical perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). The purpose of the chapter is to complement these approaches by focusing on politics and political strategies in multi-level systems.

The chapter draws on an extensive literature in governance and political accountability and on political dynamics, management and strategies within multi-level state systems. Although in international context, particular accentuation is placed on the UK case.

There are three broad findings. First, while the growth of MLG and in particular supra state activities and institutions have undermined conventional conceptions of political accountability, more nuanced interpretations are provided; as are cases of successful popular challenge to a seemingly inevitable application of neo-liberal new public management driven approaches to public service provision, as witnessed in examples of public service de-privatisation and re-municipalisation. Second, as seen in the United Kingdom, political strategies in a multi-state system are presented in terms of zero sum or alternatively win-win scenarios. In Scotland, for example, though there have been difficulties for state wide parties in managing multi-level politics in the devolved arena, yet in that arena win-win strategies have been played out; and in Northern Ireland with a contextual backdrop of conflict, there is also evidence of win-win political actions. Third, some general findings are presented which outline a range of centrifugal and centripetal forces found in some European countries and how these affect the choice of political strategy.

The explanatory power of Multi-Level Governance (MLG) has been and is being questioned. Two main criticisms have been raised: first, that MLG is ultimately descriptive, not explanatory; second, that MLG is a case of concept stretching, that it is ultimately an umbrella notion rather than a theory. This chapter outlines what ripostes may be provided to such critiques and argues that the progress of the study of MLG and its usage in political science and public policy and management may lie to an important extent in fostering the dialogue with other streams of research (thus filling the gap of some ‘missing linkages’ in the extant MLG literature), like network governance; policy learning; the analysis of policy tools and the tools of government in complex systems; models in strategic management like stakeholder analysis and others.

This volume is a collective contribution by authors from different disciplinary backgrounds who all address, from different angles and by using a variety of research methods, the key question of how to bring into the MLG research agenda a range of disciplines and applied fields of inquiry that have so far only limitedly been used in the MLG stream of research and literature more systematically.

It arises from the volume that theoretical frames like network governance; policy learning; policy tools analysis; stakeholder analysis and others have important potential to further the MLG research agenda. A number of contributions address the transformation of MLG in the European Union (EU), the polity where MLG arrangements where first detected and labelled as such (Marks, 1993). Others apply MLG frames to other institutional settings, including non-democratic regimes.

This volume is a collective attempt to suggest ‘cross-fertilisations’ from other disciplines or applied fields that may lead to unleash more of the potential and promises of the MLG agenda. It is hoped that this work lays some of the foundations for building bridges between the MLG literature and disciplines and theoretical frames that may be effectively brought into the MLG research agenda.

MLG has long gone beyond the academic debate, to become an analytical lens employed by EU and other institutions across the globe. MLG informs the practice of policy-making. By addressing some key gaps in the extant literature and furnishing perspectives to link MLG to disciplines that may provide theories and models to further its analytical potential, this volume aims at contributing to improving the practice of MLG.

The volume is – to our knowledge – the first systematic attempt to bring into the MLG literature a whole range of theories and models that may provide ways forward to the understanding and usage of MLG.

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.

This chapter examines whether Type 1 and Type 2 models of Multi-Level Governance (MLG) are suitable frameworks for analysing the operation of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) as significant new partnerships at the sub-national level of governance in England. In doing so it bridges some gaps in knowledge, largely absent from MLG literature, by demonstrating how actors in economic development attempt to solve governance problems through co-operation rather than central steering and control.

The approach follows Stubbs (2005) who called for more political anthropological or ethnographic analyses, and the chapter draws on primary interview data and secondary documentary evidence from two LEPs in the north east of England.

Some advocates of MLG believe that governance should serve citizen needs but it is clear from the contents of this chapter that MLG has a number of weaknesses in this respect, as well as neglecting power relationships and misinterpretations of the concept of territory. The conclusion shows that LEPs as multi-agency partnerships need to be accountable and it is essential to adopt models that facilitate a clearer understanding of new spaces of interactions and multiple accountabilities. Using a stakeholder analysis fills some gaps in understanding of how partnerships work and who they are accountable to, as well as assessing how public services delivery models operate within a multi-level governance setting. All 39 LEPs have varying levels of trust between partners, as well as responding to multiple accountabilities. Neither Type I nor Type II MLG is sufficient on its own as an explanatory framework for analysing LEPs, but each does offer a useful entrée into this important field of enquiry.

The MLG concept is a helpful starting point, but its utility is governed by how it is augmented with other, more appropriate models of analysis. LEPs are a challenge to the dynamics of public accountability as they involve private actors at the heart of public service delivery; they are also interesting examples of persistent contestation between actors with different mind sets on outcomes and on legitimacy, accountability and representativeness. Stakeholder analysis allows a deeper appreciation of the interactions in space and multiple accountabilities of actors in LEPs.

LEPs in England are the preferred instrument for driving economic growth in regions and sub-regions. The findings help to explain more fully some of the intricate power and trust relationships in these partnerships. The chapter also examines multiple accountabilities and how actors connect within territories.

Critically the findings show an absence of real citizen engagement or expression of public opinions and feedback loops to citizens/publics/individuals/other organisations within such diffuse partnership arrangements. In an era of Localism it is essential for partnerships to be accountable to a wider group of societal stakeholders

The chapter takes a novel approach to analysing LEPs and builds on some existing work on MLG to obtain a deeper analysis of some of the complex inter-relationships and connections between actors on LEPs.

Undeniably, plastic usage is predominant in our daily lives, featuring in an endless list of items such as bottles, disposables, packaging and fabric. At prima facie, plastic disposal causes irreversible damage to the natural environment, especially oceans. However, it also impacts human health and wellbeing, especially since its toxins or microplastics find themselves in the food chain. Since plastic causes a myriad of negative effects on the natural environment and human health, the urgency to ban it has been addressed by international organizations and the European Union (EU). Being the smallest member state within the EU, Malta presents an insightful case study of how different levels of governance and a plethora of state and non-state actors engage in a game-like interaction. To this effect, this chapter sheds light on the implications of plastic pollution vis-á-vis sustainability and wellbeing, addressed through multi-level governance. The research core revolves around an investigation on the institutional intricacies in addressing the wicked problem of single-use plastic by mapping out the different layers of policy-making mechanisms that are involved, ranging from local to European and international governance, and from governmental to civil society centric strategies. A positivist ontology is activated to underpin the exploratory nature of this study. Through the application of content analysis of selected documentation, the extent of coordination and synergies among the different policy actors across a multi-layered governance platform is put under scrutiny. Quantitative findings are utilized to validate or contradict the original set of hypotheses and to propose a number of policy and governance recommendations that are useful to researchers and practitioners in the fields of public policy, politics, environmental science, public health and wellbeing, as well as insurance and risk management.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare three different principles – the culpability, capacity and concern principles – for allocating responsibility for governance in a multi‐level context of addressing sustainable development.

The principles are first analysed from a theoretical and normative standpoint, linking to earlier literature on for example, the contribution principle, subsidiarity and global citizenship. Then the three principles are analysed in an empirical setting. The selected case is the issue complex around the health and environmental concerns from pesticide use in developing countries. Document analysis and semi‐structured interviews were carried out with relevant stakeholders from local, national and global governance levels on themes which enabled analysis of the workability and justness of the principles and whether they were already applied to some degree.

Analysis of the case shows the mutual complementarity of the three principles for allocating responsibility for governance, especially when culpability and capacity are dispersed across different agents and levels. However, the concern and capacity principles emerged as more important and promising. The results indicated the need for moving the value basis of agents towards more selfless global concern in order to create an effective multi‐level governance system.

The results may help policymakers at different levels to analyse more systematically who should assume responsibility for sustainable development governance and why.

Extends the analysis of principles for allocating responsibility for global issues.

The transition to a future of ‘Smart Mobility’ – a mobility system characterised by real time organisation via the internet incorporating technologies such as connected and autonomous vehicles – has the potential to transform many aspects of everyday life. Many countries have evolved a system of ‘multi-level governance’ (MLG) to manage the formulation and implementation of public policies at different spatial scales. Whilst MLG has several potential advantages, such as providing multiple sites for policy innovation and de-risking the implementation of new policies by piloting them in particular places, the existence of many different governing tiers with different priorities and mandates requires skilful management and coordination. The management of any substantive, disruptive transition such as that to Smart Mobility is challenging for the policy system per se; for countries with MLG systems, the task is made more complex still by the need to achieve sufficient policy alignment between different tiers and entities of governance to implement new policy instruments in practice. The specific instruments of transport pricing and roadspace reallocation provide clear examples of these challenges and pointers to how implementation questions might be resolved in an MLG framework.

The paper aims to develop a framework to facilitate the evaluation of the complexities of working in multi-level governance and partnership and to assess the extent to which collaboration adds value in terms of both process and outcomes.

The paper applies the fuzzy analysis hierarchy process (FAHP) to the design of an evaluation framework for partnerships and uses data from a questionnaire survey in Wuhan, China, to validate the framework.

The paper finds that the effectiveness of multi-level governance and partnerships is primarily determined by such factors as clarity of framework for partnership, consensus on mission statement of strategic partnership, mechanisms for joint initiation and implementation of projects and removal of barriers to flow of resources.

The paper shows that policymakers need to adopt an evaluation approach to improve the effectiveness of multi-level governance and partnerships.

The paper provides a framework for building multi-level governance and partnerships in the Chinese context.

This chapter argues that the concept of metagovernance offers an alternative to multi-level governance (MLG) for understanding how policy is delivered through complex networks. Whereas MLG portrays the state as a diminished entity, metagovernance argues for a strong, capable state that can govern through the deployment of policy tools. The chapter identifies and evaluates how policy tools are selected to realise the strategic objectives of government.

A critical case methodology is employed. Nuclear power is held to be a most difficult test for the British government’s ability to metagovern. The empirical data was collected from in-depth qualitative interviews conducted between August 2008 and July 2013.

The chapter shows that the British government’s metagovernance efforts are informed by the risks that would-be developer face. The British government is shown to have some ability to practice metagovernance but the complexities of nuclear power and the existence of a MLG structure create risks that government cannot overcome. It is also observed that in nuclear power programmes, the risks of construction cost overruns and electricity price fluctuations have the greatest impact on the calculations of would-be developers.

The findings offer insight into the limits of government capacity in the face of networks and claims of continued state power. The chapter links together the literature on risk and the emergent literature on metagovernance. It is shown that institutional risks in the form of political opportunism are ever present and cannot be easily overcome.

Government are often called upon oversee difficult projects that are delivered by commercial actors. The findings indicate how governments might approach the task and point to a need for greater sensitivity to the nature of the project itself.

The empirical results show that to moderate risk, government has tended to adopt very technocratic policies that limit wider democratic consultation in favour of working directly with commercial actors.

The chapter presents a detailed analysis of government decision-making in a highly controversial area of public policy – nuclear power.