This book explores the theoretical issues, empirical evidence, and normative debates elicited by the concept of multi-level governance (MLG). The concept is a useful descriptor of decision-making processes that involve the simultaneous mobilization of public authorities at different jurisdictional levels as well as that of non-governmental organizations and social movements. It has become increasingly relevant with the weakening of territorial state power and effectiveness and the increase in international interdependencies which serve to undermine conventional governmental processes. This book moves towards the construction of a theory of multi-level governance by defining the analytical contours of this concept, identifying the processes that can uniquely be denoted by it, and discussing the normative issues that are raised by its diffusion, particularly in the European Union. It is divided into three parts, each meeting a specific challenge - theoretical, empirical, normative. It focuses on three analytical dimensions: multi-level governance as political mobilization (politics), as authoritative decision-making (policy), and as state restructuring (polity). Three policy areas are investigated in vindicating the usefulness of MLG as a theoretical and empirical concept - cohesion, environment, higher education - with particular reference to two member-states: the UK and Germany. Finally, both the input and output legitimacy of multi-level governance decisions and arrangements and its contribution to EU democracy are discussed. As a loosely-coupled policy-making arrangement, MLG is sufficiently structured to secure coordination among public and private actors at different jurisdictional levels, yet sufficiently flexible to avoid "joint decision traps". This balance is obtained at the cost of increasingly blurred boundaries between public and private actors and a change in the established hierarchies between territorial jurisdictions.
This book looks at the way in which the Committee of the Regions (CoR) can influence EU policy making from below, despite its relatively weak position in the decision-making process. Bringing together theoretical arguments about the central role of the formation of judgment in addition to the more conventionally emphasized expression of will, with an up-to-date account of the CoR's institutional development and activities, Simona Piattoni and Justus Schönlau make a strong case not to overlook the significance of the Committee's contribution to EU-level democracy.
This book explores the theoretical issues, empirical evidence, and normative debates elicited by the concept of multi-level governance (MLG). The concept is a useful descriptor of decision-making processes that involve the simultaneous mobilization of public authorities at different jurisdictional levels as well as that of non-governmental organizations and social movements. It has become increasingly relevant with the weakening of territorial state power and effectiveness and the increase in international interdependencies which serve to undermine conventional governmental processes. This book moves towards the construction of a theory of multi-level governance by defining the analytical contours of this concept, identifying the processes that can uniquely be denoted by it, and discussing the normative issues that are raised by its diffusion, particularly in the European Union. It is divided into three parts, each meeting a specific challenge - theoretical, empirical, normative. It focuses on three analytical dimensions: multi-level governance as political mobilization (politics), as authoritative decision-making (policy), and as state restructuring (polity). Three policy areas are investigated in vindicating the usefulness of MLG as a theoretical and empirical concept - cohesion, environment, higher education - with particular reference to two member-states: the UK and Germany. Finally, both the input and output legitimacy of multi-level governance decisions and arrangements and its contribution to EU democracy are discussed. As a loosely-coupled policy-making arrangement, MLG is sufficiently structured to secure coordination among public and private actors at different jurisdictional levels, yet sufficiently flexible to avoid "joint decision traps". This balance is obtained at the cost of increasingly blurred boundaries between public and private actors and a change in the established hierarchies between territorial jurisdictions.
It has become apparent that a clear gap exists between European Union (EU) level policymaking and Member State implementation. Previous research has neglected to fully define factors that encourage or prevent implementation processes and instead focused on upstream decision making processes or downstream effects of policy. Simona Milio here proposes a shift in analytical focus towards policy-implementation since this constitutes a crucial common pathway that determines whether a policy actually becomes effective or not. EU implementation deficits appear to be influenced by problems related to the multi-level structure of European policy making. Successful implementation will only occur if relevant policy actors at national and sub-national levels are persuaded to co-operate with EU policy goals. Furthermore, this co-operation is not possible unless all parties manage the complex policy networks and implementation regimes responsible for putting European policies into force. Within this framework, this book answers three important questions: 1 Is the EU multi-level governance system weakening the implementation of policies? 2 Are national and sub-national governments capable of dealing with the challenges imposed by multi-level governance? 3 Which factors account for differences in implementation performance among Member States? In order to answer these questions, Simona Milio's research explores the influence of two variables on implementation processes: Administrative Capacity and Political Stability. Cohesion Policy is chosen as the focus of this study since it has demonstrated a dramatically different implementation pace among EU Member States over the past 20 years. Three EU Member States are chosen to test the hypothesis. Italy appears to be a pertinent example, given its constant struggle to conform to EU directives and to implement Cohesion Policy. Spain is chosen since, in contrast to the Italian scenario, it represents the best performing Member State in terms of implementation. Finally Poland is studied, as a case where a shift from centralization towards decentralization has occurred in order to implement Cohesion Policy and integrate the multi-level governance system.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.