Search Results

The creation of the European Union, and the associated process of economic, political, and social integration that has accompanied it, has changed the nature of nation state and subnational politics as it had been known for at least two centuries. This chapter starts by reviewing three of the models that have been used to conceptualize the different ways in which EU integration has occurred . The state-centred, supranational and multilevel governance models. Next it offers a conceptualization of Europeanization. In the following three sections (Subnational Government in the EU Context; EU Regional Policy and Subnational Government; and The Operation of EU Regional Policy) it goes on to evaluate some of the changes that have occurred, which have resulted particularly in changing forms of subnational politics within the European Union. Most specifically it examines the extent to which the essential distinction between northern and southern European styles of local politics is being undermined by the process of European integration and policy Europeanization. The chapter concludes by evaluating the extent to which ideas such as variable geometry and multilevel governance remain useful concepts in aiding understanding of the processes of change through which EU territorial politics are currently passing.

This chapter shows how the Commission and the member states agreed early on the need for delegation and harmonization in the EU on financial market regulation, but could not proceed until the constitutive and regulative norms sorting out responsibilities were concluded.

This chapter relates the argument of the book to the existing literature on European integration. It entails three elements: placing European integration within an historiographical framework emphasizing the emergence of modern administrative governance, thus challenging certain common misunderstandings of the ‘administrative’ label applied to integration; the role of ‘delegation’ as a historically constructed normative-legal principle—a ‘resistance norm’—defining the relationship between constitutional principals and administrative agents; and finally, the critical importance of national antecedents in establishing the legitimating structures and normative principles of the postwar constitutional settlement of administrative governance on which European integration would build in the 1950s.

This chapter compares multilevel governance in the EU and in federal systems of nation states. While federal states use a variety of modes of intergovernmental coordination of policies, patterns of joint-decision making can be found most often when constitutions are amended. A comparative analysis of selected cases of constitutional reform reveals that institutional change is facilitated by an appropriate design of negotiations. Under particular conditions, constitutional policy provides an escape from the joint-decision trap. In the EU, the Convention process indicates a new arena for constitutional negotiations that support a successful reform of decision rules. However, this approach, as well as the simplified procedure in the Intergovernmental Conference, comes to its limits if powers for particular policies are to be changed by Treaty amendment.

The chapter discusses the increasing role of sub-national territories as new, distinctive and relatively autonomous “bounded spaces” in certain areas of social protection, notably health care, active labour market policies, social services and assistance. This new development is illustrated by reference not only to within-state trends of social protection regionalization, but also to novel forms of transnational regional groupings. The Italian case is presented in detail as an emblematic example of the shift from welfare state to welfare regions.

The notion of international community is en vogue and pervades international law. Curiously, there are no shared understandings, however, among international lawyers about what this community is or should be. Without a clear conception of the nature, boundaries, and constituency of the community or communities concerned by international law-making and of the ways to link their interests and decisions back to national political communities, efforts made to institutionalize global democracy, or at least to develop mechanisms of international accountability are seriously hindered.Based on republican premises, this chapter argues that the international community should be conceived as a community of both States and individuals and constructed as multilevel, multilateral, and pluralistic. It refines the controversial criterion of inclusion in the international political community and addresses the vexed question of the responsibility for inclusion.

Although work on depoliticization arises most frequently from the literature on governance as a function of the differentiated polity, it also has resonance with that on multilevel governance (MLG). This indicates a distinction between ‘two types’ of MLG: from forms of territorialized federal governance and from more ad hoc actions of delegated governance. Setting the literature on arena-shifting within a framework inspired by the MLG literature on the European Union demonstrates that depoliticization may be fostered at the nexus of different types of policy devolution, due to the functional interdependence between policy fields. The fundamental argument of this chapter is that depoliticization assumes intention on the part of key actors to effect strategies of depoliticization, and this assumption is problematic. The example of monetary and fiscal governance is (re)used to demonstrate the strategic interactions between territorialized and a-territorialized forms of policy governance and the problems that arise between the two.

This chapter explores the processes of regulatory state-building and its variegated character by exploring three key areas: first, the embedding of patterns of market reform within previously dominant statist economic regimes that is the path dependence of the regulation; second, the extent to which this path dependence is modified by the transnationalization of the state through mechanisms of multilevel governance; and finally how this multilevel governance results in a process of juridification of the regulatory state that, in turn, shapes a distinctive form of politics. The chapter concludes by suggesting some future lines for research in expanding and consolidating this project on the regulatory state in the global South.

This chapter analyzes the role that cities play for climate governance in multilevel governance systems. It shows that three dimensions of urban climate governance have to be distinguished: hierarchical climate governance, which is restricted to cities implementing international, EU, and national climate change policy; vertical climate governance, in which cities start to influence international and EU climate governance directly; and horizontal climate governance where cities cooperate directly in developing and implementing climate change policy through the establishment of transnational city networks, twinnings, and project networks. Through these three modes cities are increasingly becoming vital elements and active actors in multilevel climate governance systems, although not all cities participate to the same extent. Multilevel climate change governance requires integrated approaches and institutional innovations to cope with the fragmented landscape of climate governance through the vertical and horizontal integration of climate governance systems. Hierarchical, vertical, and horizontal climate governance arrangements contribute to such integration and innovation.

This chapter introduces the volume, sets out its key themes, and explains how the chapters interrogate the nexus between governance and anti-politics via the concept of depoliticization. It argues that the literature on governance has drawn attention to a ‘capacity gap’ between elected politicians and those who actually take decisions about essential public services, while the literature on anti-politics has highlighted a growing ‘democratic gap’ between politicians and citizens. These issues arise in a dynamic context that is captured by concepts such as meta-governance and multilevel governance but also a wider disillusionment with neo-liberal ideology. This book addresses the ‘research gap’ that arises from the relative absence of studies that have drilled down into the relationship between the ‘capacity gap’ and ‘democratic gap’, by focusing on depoliticization. Overall, we argue that studies of depoliticization are well placed to examine these questions and especially the ‘nexus’ between governance and anti-politics.

‘Multilevel’ governance (MLG) refers to the fact that, in contemporary established democracies, collectively binding decisions are frequently formulated or implemented in a cooperative manner by networks composed of public actors attached to different jurisdictional levels (from the local to the supranational) and of non-public actors such as experts, interest representatives, and members of cause groups. This chapter develops the expectation that the occurrence and magnitude of depoliticization in MLG depend on a number of its defining traits, and that the presence and intensity of these traits depend in turn on the specific empirical configuration and actor constellation of governance arrangements. The chapter first lays out the relationships that may exist between different facets of depoliticization in MLG, and then explores how MLG is depoliticized when technocratic rule, deficits of representation, lack of political control, and lack of public debate tend to prevail.

Multilevel governance in the European Union includes representatives of citizens in the European Parliament and representatives of member states accountable to their national parliaments. Moreover, interest groups may closely cooperate with national or European executives who negotiate in policy fields in the EU. Thus, actors interacting in multilevel policymaking are subject to constraints due to accountability relations in parliamentary systems and interest intermediation. While these relations are decisive for democratic legitimacy, reinforcing the power of parliaments or interest groups would reduce the effectiveness of governance. This dilemma is avoided by an architecture which integrates politics and policymaking in the different territorial and functional arenas into a ‘loosely coupled’ structure. Modes of flexible coordination, inter-parliamentary relations and multilevel organizations of interest can contribute to stabilize this institutional architecture of a multilevel polity.

This concluding chapter argues that citizens play an important role in multilevel governance decision making on the inclusion of foreign residents. How this role contributes to national policies, however, varies significantly from country to country. In some cases, issue-oriented humanitarian advocates have been able to acquire national influence on behalf of immigrants. Yet in others, the pivotal actors have been subnational governments or regional parties, with which civil society groups have cooperated and through which they have exerted some indirect influence. Despite leading to generally similar national policies, advocacy–governance relationships have varied, with some having established relationships to national political elites, and others emerging from processes of local community and institution building.

Changes to governance institutions and practices in western democracies have created the conditions for multilevel governance, and have supported the development of new forms of political agency and organisation. This chapter sees government itself as engaged in processes of subverting or unsettling institutionalised governance processes by its emphasis on neighbourhood governance. It argues that the roots of this apparent disconnect between purpose and outcomes in neighbourhood governance are located in the differences between the values and practices of ‘big’ versus ‘small’ local governments and the tensions which arise when attempts are made to combine them. The chapter uses research evidence from an ESRC study of public participation to illustrate how the coexistence of these different interpretations generates conflict over the design and implementation of neighbourhood governance initiatives and creates opportunities for local citizens to subvert formal policy goals via strategies of reshaping, disruption, and sabotage.

As regions have emerged as functional spaces, states have sought to regain control and regulate them. At the same time, social and political movements have contested the meanings attributed to regions by states and their subordination to a competitive economic logic. The result is a politicization of regional space. In some places this coincides with strong historical identities and national diversity. The result of these pressures is the emergence of regional government. This might even be characterized as a move from governance to government, reversing the usual argument. Models of regional government differ from one state to another, depending on state traditions and the demands to which they are responding. It is a mistake to see such forms as a simple response to functional imperatives. Functional pressures are mediated by politics and functional arguments depend on prior normative assumptions.

This chapter discusses Japan's multilevel governance by examining how national policy can restrict local governments in many ways, including effective governance over foreign-resident populations. Despite the diversity of local governments, they shared common concerns when it comes to their position in the multilevel policy structure—they are limited by some national policies in housing, access to health care, and children's education. In particular, these policies hindered local governments from developing policy for their foreign-resident populations. As a result, they turned to the national government to seek regulatory changes, new programmatic resources, and national adoption of models rooted in local innovation and experimentation.

This chapter provides an institutional analysis of the European Union. It maps out potential sites of advocacy and identifies important actors within and outside of the European Union that pertain to the issue of violence against women and gender equality more broadly. It addresses the institutional context of advocacy within the complex and evolving system of multilevel governance that is the EU. It discusses the role of treaties in defining and redefining the policy process and in shaping political opportunity structures. It provides an overview of the EU institutions and their general favorability and openness to women’s rights advocacy. It also addresses the role of particular nonstate actors, including umbrella organizations and various experts and practitioners.