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.

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

In the current economic and social crisis affecting Europe, dialogue is of great importance. The reaction of the EU to the present situation is evident from various discussions and documents. Following the ambitious Lisbon Strategy, a document created during a period of economic growth for most of the Member States, we now have before us the Europe 2020 Strategy. In this article, the author explores the contents of this strategy in light of the implementation of its goals of multilevel governance.

AbstractThis article makes four claims: First, tax systems at the national, regional and global level are regulatory systems. They can and should be studied as that. Second, taxation is an important extension to regulatory scholars' empirical field of inquiry. It is a hard case to test prominent theories of new, softer modes of governance. Third, in the era of liberalization and globalization tax governance exhibits similar institutional changes as regulatory governance. It has changed (1) from national to multi‐level governance, (2) from public and direct to indirect with increased involvement of private actors, and (3) from hierarchical and coercive to cooperative and responsive. Fourth, since the global financial crisis, the new sites of tax governance have increasingly been involved in the fight against tax evasion and avoidance and have become more politicized. These claims are substantiated by reference to the contributions to the special issue that this article introduces.