Suchergebnisse

AbstractDespite its widespread use in European studies and beyond, the concept of multilevel governance (MLG) still suffers from a considerable degree of uncertainty as to its precise meaning, which in turn hinders the cumulative development of this research programme. In an attempt to stimulate a systematic methodological discussion of the idea of MLG, this article presents a critical reconstruction of the concept structured around three 'axes of ambiguity'– the applicability of MLG beyond the European Union; the role of non‐state actors; the focus on policy‐making structures versus processes – followed by a conceptual assessment and clarification strategy based on John Gerring's criterial framework. Building particularly on Gerring's criterion of causal utility, the article argues that the MLG concept is best clarified along the (not necessarily exclusive) lines of two theoretical directions emerging from the literature: MLG as a theory of state transformation, and MLG as a theory of public policy. For each of the two models, the criterial framework also indicates a number of corresponding conceptual shortcomings which MLG scholars should try to reduce as much as possible in future refinements of this idea.

The commentary returns to the beginning of the career of multilevel governance as a distinct perspective on the European Union and European integration. At the time, multilevel governance allowed a generation of students to overcome the stylised debates between Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism on how to best capture the 'nature of the beast'. At the same time, multilevel governance still privileged the role of public authorities over economic and societal actors. While subsequent studies broadened the focus to include the social partners or public interest groups, Hooghe and Marks have retained their public authority bias. The commentary argues that the focus on multilevel government rather than multilevel governance has increased the scope or applicability of Hooghe and Marks' approach, both within the European Union and beyond. At the same time, the government bias has prevented the multilevel governance approach from unlocking its full explanatory potential.

Cover -- Contents -- Preface -- Contributors -- I: Introduction -- 1. Introduction: The Promises and Pitfalls of Aboriginal Multilevel Governance -- 2. Rebuilding Canada: Reflections on Indigenous Peoples and the Restructuring of Government -- II: Treaty Governance in the North -- 3. Multilevel Governance in the Inuit Regions of the Territorial and Provincial North -- 4. A Partnership Opportunity Missed: The Northwest Territories Devolution and Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement

Literature defines epistemic communities as knowledge-based networks whose purpose is to influence policy. While previous studies often focused on the horizontal functioning of epistemic communities, we expand the debate by integrating the vertical dimension as an additional governing structure. We argue that vertical epistemic communities take advantage of multiple-scale systems to generate coherent strategies which enable them to influence policymaking. Through the case of Swiss smoking prevention policy, we study how vertical epistemic communities in federalist systems can lead to policy harmonisation between member states. They do so by shifting the decision-making process away from the political towards expert arenas.

Literature defines epistemic communities as knowledge-based networks whose purpose is to influence policy. While previous studies often focused on the horizontal functioning of epistemic communities, we expand the debate by integrating the vertical dimension as an additional governing structure. We argue that vertical epistemic communities take advantage of multiple-scale systems to generate coherent strategies which enable them to influence policymaking. Through the case of Swiss smoking prevention policy, we study how vertical epistemic communities in federalist systems can lead to policy harmonisation between member states. They do so by shifting the decision-making process away from the political towards expert arenas.

Multilevel governance describes the diffusion of authority away from the central state. In this contribution, we recount how an archaic term, governance, became part of the vocabulary of political science. We then outline three building blocks of a postfunctionalist theory of multilevel governance. The first is that multilevel governance is cooperation to provide collective goods at diverse scales. The second is that the form governance takes depends on the sociality of the participants. The third is that conflict over community enables or impedes multilevel governance.

Renate Mayntz (Hrsg.): Negotiated Reform: The Multilevel Governance of Financial Regulation. Frankfurt am Main: Campus 2015. 9783593505510

AbstractResearch shows that electoral systems, gender quotas and a country's socio‐economic development affect women's legislative representation (WLR). Less attention is paid to the effects of the rise of regional political arenas and multilevel politics on WLR. Due to less costly and competitive electoral campaigns, women can have easier access to regional legislatures. We argue that this relationship is mitigated by the distribution of competences between the different levels of the political system and that decentralization's effect on WLR at the regional level is dependent on the regions' political power. To test this, we use an original dataset on WLR in 383 regional parliaments in 19 European countries from 1970 to 2018. Results of the three‐level models show that more political authority vested into regions leads to a lower level of WLR in the legislatures of the more politically powerful regions in comparison with not only the regions possessing less authority but also with the national parliament. Possible explanations for this effect, such as the attractiveness of these positions to the mostly male political elite and, consequently, increased costs and competitiveness of electoral campaigns, are suggested.

Aboriginal self-government is changing the governance landscape in Canada. This paper focuses on a little-studied aspect of aboriginal self-government arrangements, namely the horizontal dispersion of power among non-governmental institutions in the policy process. Nunavut, the Canadian territory created in 1999, offers a good example of this horizontal power dispersion. The Government of Nunavut is the only Canadian public government stemming from a land claim agreement. This creates a special set of obligations and entrenches a horizontal multilevel governance model, with a unique model of governance between a public government, the government of Nunavut (GN), that serves a predominantly Inuit population, and a nonprofit beneficiary organization, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.(NTI), representing the Inuit of Nunavut. In this paper we map out the authority and legitimacy of these levels of governance and the impacts of this system on Nunavut public policies and access to resource development revenues.

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) is highly harmonised, but with persisting conflicts over authority. The European Commission responded to internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause, and a promise to review the existing EU GM regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. This article considers the post-authorisation policy-making powers of Member States and subnational regions, in light of subsidiarity-based multilevel governance. It considers the different approaches to risk-centred issues and more general policy choices. Overall, the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening subsidiarity-based multilevel governance within the GM cultivation regime, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focusing particularly on the complementary powers, coordination and the regional levels.