Types of Multi-Level Governance

The reallocation of authority upwards, downwards, and sideways from central states hasdrawn attention from a growing number of scholars in the social sciences. Yet beyondagreement that governance has become (and should be) multi-level, there is no consensusabout how it should be organized. This paper draws on several literatures to distinguish twotypes of multi-level governance. One type conceives of dispersion of authority to a limitednumber of levels. A second type of governance conceives of a large number of functionallyspecialized, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. We conclude by specifying the virtues ofeach type of governance.multilevel governance; multilevel governance

IMPLICATIONS OF THE EU MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE IN THE FIELD OF COMPETITION POLICY – A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHESION AND COMPETITION POLICY

The paper has in view to present the intrinsic characteristics of the European Union and to show that these characteristics require in an objective way the implementation of a multi-level governance. A comparative analysis of cohesion and competition policy of the European Union is presented from the point of view of these elements. Further on, given the implications of the economic crisis the paper explores the possible translation from multi-level governance to polycentric governance and the implications for the cohesion and competition policies.nature of European Union, multi-level governance, polycentric governance, cohesion policy, competition policy, possible structural changes of the European Union

Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. IHS Political Science Series: 2003, No. 87

The reallocation of authority upwards, downwards, and sideways from central states has drawn attention from a growing number of scholars in political science. Yet beyond agreement that governance has become (and should be) multi-level, there is no consensus about how it should be organized. This article draws on several literatures to distinguish two types of multi-level governance. One type conceives of dispersion of authority to general-purpose, non-intersecting, and durable jurisdictions. A second type of governance conceives of task-specific, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. We conclude by specifying the virtues of each type of governance

Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level - and effective?

Current international and European Union environmental policies increasingly promote collaborative and participatory decision-making on appropriate and multiple governance levels as a means to attain more sustainable policies and a more effective and lasting policy implementation. The entailed shifts of geographical scale of governance can be exemplified by the EU Water Framework Directive in that higher-level policies are devolved not only to the member states but to local collaborative decision-making bodies on natural as opposed to territorial scales. To date, empirical evidence and theoretical considerations have remained ambiguous about the environmental outcomes of such modes of governance. At the same time, the relationship between multi-level governance and non-state actor involvement remains a largely uncharted terrain. Accordingly, a twofold research agenda is mapped out: How does public participation work in different governance contexts? And what potential do multi-level governance environments have to foster the effectiveness of participatory governance? Drawing on scholarly literature on multi-level governance, policy implementation, public participation and complex systems, we develop five sets of hypotheses on how the number of policy levels and geographical rescaling affect citizen participation, actor interests and policy outcomes. We present empirical results based on a comparative meta-analysis of 47 case studies in environmental governance in North America and the EU, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. --Civic participation,multi-level governance,re-scaling,policy implementation,institutional fit,meta-analysis,case survey

An assessment of Multilevel Governance in Cohesion Policy, 2007-2013

This study offers a thorough overview of Multi-Level Governance in Cohesion Policy in the current programming period of 2007-2013 by examining the evolution of the concept in terms of its definition and conceptual framework, analysing the current processes of implementing Multi-Level Governance in the EU27, as well as describing the advantages and disadvantages of partnerships in policy-making. Moreover, the study aims to formulate strategic and operational recommendations in the context of the preparation of the 2014- 2020 programming perio

Von Environmental Governance zu Landscape Governance: Multi-Level-Governance und Politics of Scale

Governance has definitely become a very iridescent concept in recent years. The term is widely used, meanwhile, in almost all social-science disciplines as well as in the political process. The intention of this paper is not so much to clarify these sometimes vague meanings but to highlight some special characteristics of environmental governance connected with the restructuring of the spatial dimensions of politics. It starts from the assumption that the quest for multi-level decision making is particularly pressing for environmental governance. However, multi-level governance raises concern about the constitution of various spatial levels and their relationships with each other, as discussed under the term of politics of scale. Moreover, it is argued that for environmental governance the spatial reference is strongly connected with another challenge, which concerns the question of how to deal with the biophysical conditions of particular places? The term landscape governance is introduced to tackle this question without referring to an ontologically given space. Thus, landscape governance deals with the interconnections between socially constructed spaces (the politics of scale) and 'natural' conditions of places. For this task, the concept of societal relationships with nature is introduced and applied to the term 'landscape' as a bridging concept between social and natural sciences. The paper illustrates the approach of landscape governance with examples of problem-oriented interdisciplinary research at the UFZ-Centre for Environmental research in Leipzig, eastern Germany. --Environmental governance,scale,politics of scale,landscape,societal relationships with nature

Challenges and future directions for third sector governance research

This paper examines some of the main limitations of research on the governance of third sector organisations. It argues that there are limitations in both the way governance has been conceptualised and the ways in which it has been researched. It suggests that research has focussed too narrowly on the boards of unitary organisations, and ignored both the wider governance system and the more complex multi-level and multi-faceted governance structures that many organisations have evolved. It also argues that the dominant research designs employed have been cross-sectional and positivist in orientation. As a result too little attention has been paid to board processes and change and how they are influenced by contextual and historical factors. Based on this analysis some new directions for third sector governance research are briefly mapped out

Legitimacy analysis of multi-level governance of biodiversity: Evidence from 12 case studies across the EU

Legitimacy is regarded as one critical aspect of biodiversity management and nature conservation arrangements. Multi-level governance is claimed to pose several challenges to legitimacy. The aim of this paper is to review some legitimacy challenges in multilevel governance contexts, and to analyse empirically biodiversity governance in different EU countries in the light of these challenges. Four legitimacy criteria - legal compatibility, accountability, representation and inclusion, and transparency - serve as a framework for theoretical and empirical analysis. The analysis is based on twelve cases of multilevel biodiversity governance from different EU countries. The results show that several of the legitimacy challenges in multilevel governance can be observed in the cases, for example the poor inclusion of certain concerns at some time points of the decision process, difficulties in being accountable towards multiple levels simultaneously, or the weak visibility of the decision process either for the general public or for the immediate participants. --multi-level governance,biodiversity,legitimacy,legal compatibility,accountability,inclusion,transparency