Reflecting on the Complexities of Multilevel Governance: Book Review of ‘Rethinking Multilevel Governance’ by Arthur Benz (2024)

The European Council of Lisbon (December 2000) formally adopted the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) as a means to implement the Lisbon Strategy, a package of policies aimed at promoting economic and social innovations in the member states. The Open Method of Coordination is a means of governance based on the cooperation of member states. The formal introduction of the OMC, based on policy coordination at European level in order to induce change in national policies, triggered a lively scholarly debate on the role of new modes of governance in the EU. New modes of governance are roughly defined as non-hierarchical forms of political steering that rely on policy coordination among a multitude of institutional actors and across government levels. Scholars have coined a variety of terms to capture the characteristics of these governance modes, such as soft modes of governance, network governance, multilevel governance, experimental governance or, as we call it here and elsewhere, innovative governance. Despite the wide variety of terms, scholars hold several assumptions in common. Thus, most scholars assume that new modes of governance have only recently emerged. Furthermore, they assume that such modes of governance particularly emerge in policy areas where the Union lacks competences, while some form of common action is needed. Finally, many scholars take it for granted that non–hierarchical modes of governance result in weak impacts.

Purpose This chapter attempts to answer some of the questions raised in this volume, in particular: (1) provide a concise but precise definition of multi-level governance; (2) prove that it is a theoretical and not just a descriptive concept and (3) dispel some of the misconceptions associated with it, for example, that (a) multi-level governance underplays and conceals the exercise of power or (b) it is incompatible with democracy. Methodology/approach The chapter is correspondingly organized in four sections, preceded and followed by short introductory and concluding sections. The four sections address, respectively: (1) the definition of multi-level governance (MLG) (‘Solving the dependent variable problem’); (2) the causes that explain the emergence and diffusion of MLG arrangements (‘The contextual causes of MLG’); (3) the changes that it triggers in the manner in which power is deployed (‘The institutional consequences of MLG’); (4) the democratic implications of the diffusion of MLG arrangements (‘Are MLG arrangements democratic?’). The methodology employed is mainly that of ‘conceptual analysis’ (Sartori, 1984), which implies that the connotational features (those features which minimally allow us to identify cases of MLG) of the concept are identified so that we can delimit the denotational extension of the concept (the universe of phenomena which can be identified as cases of MLG). This chapter contains a highly abridged version of this conceptual analysis, which is fully developed in Piattoni (2010a). Findings MLG denotes a growing class of policymaking arrangements characterized by the simultaneous activation of governmental and non-governmental actors at various jurisdictional levels. These arrangements have identifiable contextual causes, even if the precise contours of MLG arrangements depend on the capacity of the actors to mobilize arguments and people on behalf of their specific ideas, values and interest. The precise shape that these arrangements will take, therefore, depends on the mobilization capacity of the actors (and on the capacity of other actors to contain or delimit such mobilization). The causes of mobilization are mainly contextual, having to do with the increased complexity and overload of state activities and with the growing request for direct involvement on the part of civil society organizations. Both these trends induce states to seek joint solutions to common problems, hence MLG dynamics occur on three axes: a centre-periphery axis, a state-society axis, and a national-international axis which challenge, respectively, the centrality, the distinctiveness and the sovereignty of the state. Research/practical implications This conceptualization of MLG allows us to analyse the extent to which different policymaking arrangements respond to MLG logics and to understand which actors and which levels are mostly responsible for the particular configuration that obtains. This conceptualization of MLG, although here deployed in a purely discursive manner, could enable us to ‘measure’ the degree of institutional and political empowerment of subjects, other than central state actors, in various policy realms. Social implications The most important social implication is the impact that MLG arrangements have on how democratic decision-making occurs, on what we mean by democracy, and on the societal perception of how contemporary democracies work. The chapter argues that trying to apply to MLG arrangements democratic criteria and standards that were developed for the unitary, distinctive and sovereign state is misleading and that we must rather develop an updated notion of democracy appropriate for the interconnected, multi-level context in which we live. The concept of ‘transnational democracy’ is cursorily offered as a promising direction for further reflection. Originality/value The chapter is wholly based on the long-term work and reflection of the author on MLG and on the scholarly contributions of the other authors of the volume.

Successfully combating desertification has proven to be a demanding endeavour. Fifteen years since the UNCCD was signed, its implementation record remains poor worldwide and in Mediterranean Europe. Desertification is a complex socio‐environmental problem, which requires long‐term efforts towards integrating environmental concerns in sectoral and development policies, coordination among sectors, policies, agencies and programmes as well as efficient and effective multilevel collaboration arrangements. It is not accidental that Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) and multi‐level governance (MLG) are central notions in the UNCCD neither that it's poor implementation record may partly be due to the difficulties of responding to these challenges. This study explores the role of EPI in combating desertification in MLG contexts. First, it briefly negotiates desertification and the UNCCD emphasizing the EPI and MLG provisions. After presenting the conceptual and methodological framework employed, it offers a broad‐brush assessment of the integration of desertification concerns into development policies at the international, EU and Mediterranean member state level and the role of governance and MLG. It concludes that the state of integrating desertification concerns in development policies at all levels is poor and the current mode of governance and MLG are far from the UNCCD ideal of ‘good governance’. The low political priority of desertification, several context‐specific factors, the general and sectoral mode of governance and the complexities of contemporary MLG contexts explain this poor integration. Future research directions are suggested to advance the state of knowledge on promoting EPI in MLG contexts and provide policy support for combating desertification. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Literature suggests that local governance might encourage the emergence of innovative businesses. Little is known about that relationship in the context of tourism, although literature suggests governance as a way to deal with the problems of tourism destinations. Additionally, studies in entrepreneurship seldom focus on tourism. This study addresses these gaps by exploring the role of local governance in tourism entrepreneurship. The research strategy of the study is qualitative, using focus groups and semi-structured interviews with diverse local and regional stakeholders, from entrepreneurs to policymakers. Two municipalities in the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon serve as case studies. The differences in the entrepreneurial ecosystems of both territories relate to their distinctive stages of development as tourism destinations. Results suggest that the "good governance" model prevails but that a "one size fits all" approach is not helpful. Results also suggest the need for local governance models to evolve into modes of multi-level network governance, incorporating regional interaction and integration; and recognising participation as the key to democratic legitimacy, transparency, and effectiveness of public policies. With multi-level governance, public administrations at different levels of government are responsible for opening the decision-making process to other relevant actors in society. The study's theoretical contribution concerns the need to investigate hybrid governance models for tourism entrepreneurship. For practitioners (i.e., local decision-makers), this study highlights the advantages of flexibility and a multi-level approach to governance.

This article explores how policy innovation in local social policies emerges within a multilevel governance context. Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), it examines how beliefs, coalitions, and institutional arrangements interact across different political arenas—European, national/regional, and local—to foster innovative social policy solutions. Empirically, the study compares two cases of policy innovation (inspired by basic income principles)—Barcelona and Utrecht. Methodologically, the analysis relies on 19 semi‐structured interviews with key actors involved in the policy process, complemented by documentary analysis. Findings show that policy innovation results from the interplay between local agency and multilevel structural opportunities. The ACF proves to be a valuable theoretical lens for explaining how ideas and coalitions gain traction across governance levels. Moreover, it concludes that local innovation depends not only on the role of policy entrepreneurs but also on the enabling conditions created by multilevel governance structures. Related Articles Burau, V., and C. Clavier. 2018. “Understanding Gaps in the Coexistence between Different Modes of Governance: A Case Study of Public Health in Schools in a Multilevel System.” Politics & Policy 46, no. 4: 604–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12269 . Hodgett, S. 2006. “Multilevel Governance: Policy and Interpretive Approaches in One European Region.” Politics & Policy 34, no 4: 726–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2006.00038.x . Bance, P., and A. Chassy. 2017. “The Rollout of the Multilevel Governance System: A Source of Reworking the Contingent Valuation Method?” Politics & Policy 45, no 6: 1080–1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12236 .

This paper discusses developments in central-local relations, or more specifically, trends in multi-level governance, i.e. governance across levels of government. These trends reveal both something of a new disorder as well as elements of a new order between central and local governments in many European countries. A polite way of describing the new disorder is to point to an increasing incidence of bottom-up governance, policy-making and assorted initiatives taken by local authorities with or without consulting the central government, especially in economic development. A more brutal description is to suggest the emergence of a more competitive mentality in cities and regions, a go-it-alone attitude, and the devil take the hindmost. The new order in central-local relations refers to new modes of multi-level governance, in which agencies work together across levels of government in mutual learning loops. At their best these collaborative arrangements demonstrate subsidiarity at work. Multi-level governance both as a phenomenon and a concept is attracting increasing attention. Tellingly, one of the latest reports from the OECD's PUMA project is titled 'Managing Across Levels of Government'KeywordsLocal GovernmentVariable GeometryLearning LoopPlanning ContractAdministrative ExperimentThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

While the digital revolution has created new pressures and tensions for governing institutions in Canada, a broad discussion of the evolution of the Canadian Westminster governance ecosystem has yet to occur in earnest. The article seeks to contribute to such a discussion. We identify three related trends shaping the Canadian governance context: the rise of digital culture, the disintermediation of traditional authorities, and the increasingly distributed nature of governance. We then draw on scholarly literature surrounding “multilevel governance” to help contextualize these trends, and identify key tensions and needs related to the increasingly pressing imperative to develop a “made‐in‐Canada” governance approach that is well attuned to the needs of the digital era. We conclude by suggesting that such an approach will require a new style of leadership, one that privileges agility and resilience and that is issue‐based and outcome‐focused, rather than constrained by jurisdictional silos or narrowly conceived institutional mandates.

The unsustainability of production and consumption patterns and the socio‐technical systems in the energy, mobility, water, and solid waste sectors highlights the need for sustainability transitions. However, the transition management perspective indicates that these transformations cannot be managed in the traditional hierarchical sense. Therefore, new modes of governance are required to deal with the complexity and nature of sustainability issues. This study seeks to elucidate these matters by bringing the literature on sustainability transitions, transition management, and governance modes closer to each other, generating a better understanding of governance in transitions. In addition to the theoretical discussion on the linked concepts, this study also contributes by presenting and characterizing five modes of governance that can facilitate the paths to transformation. They are participatory, collaborative, multilevel, smart, and network governance. These modes of governance differ according to the actors involved and the nature of their interactions and encompass different political processes, institutional structures, and policy content. The assumption is that the modes of governance addressed, which distance themselves from conventional approaches based on top‐down control, can favor transition initiatives that promote transformative processes toward a more resilient and sustainable society. However, the inherent embeddedness of the public service is recognized, which requires transitions in governance itself through institutional adaptations and changes in the role of actors and public officials.

While the notion of governance has received considerable scholarly attention, much less is known about change, and its sources, across modes of governance within respective policy domains. This article explores these neglected issues in two policy domains characterized by multi-level governance characteristics: Land (state)-local relationships in the domain of building administration and relationships governing the prisons domain in Germany. It does so in three steps. First, the article explores governance and considers endogenous and exogenous sources of change. Second, it discusses the institutional arrangements in the two domains and analyses modes of governance and their change. Third, the article compares the different dynamics of change and links these findings to wider debates regarding change across and within modes of governance. The analysis of the two domains suggests that ‘hunting around’ effects (i.e. permanent instability) are less prominent than suggested by cultural theory, while external pressures for change are filtered by the preferences of the actors within the respective domains.

New developments in EU governance that may have an impact on subnational authorities have not yet been adequately covered by research into multi-level governance. This paper examines the role of the Scottish Executive1 in a traditional EU policy area, the Structural Funds, and in a ‘new’ mode of governance, the Open Method of Coordination in Employment. Looking at the policy, polity and politics dimensions of governance, it concludes that the OMC cannot yet be seen as a new opportunity for the Scottish Executive to play a greater role in European policy making.

Transformation towards sustainable development is about findings new ways of thinking, organising and doing to navigate wicked challenges such as climate change and urbanisation. Such challenges call for new governance modes that match the complexity of the systems to be handled, where multi-level governance and collaborative approaches have been suggested to contribute to such transformative capacity building. This in-depth, trans-disciplinary study investigates how the multi-level governance context in Stockholm, Sweden, influences the transformative capacity from the perspective of local sustainability initiatives. It was found that even though the decentralized governance of the Stockholm region hosts a great potential in supporting city wide transformation, it is hampered by disconnect between actors, levels and sectors and the short-term funding structure. The suggested interventions highlight the tension between enabling collaborations, while safeguarding a high local diversity of initiatives and flexibility to ensure sustained space for innovation and learning.

Chinese state reforms have resulted in both horizontal and vertical diffusion of actors in policy-making and policy implementation, leading to the creation of new collaborative institutions between government and non-government actors. At the non-governmental level, this has inter alia enabled the development of non-governmental organizations and the passage of a raft of legislation for public participation and access to information. However, the political and legal constraints imposed by the authoritarian system have meant that private citizens still find it hard to make their voice heard. Public participation legislation has suffered from an implementation gap, leading to the proliferation of environmental protests across China. For private citizens, therefore, protest outside of the formal-legal channels is a key tool to influence the policy process and demand public participation and better government accountability. There are indications that protests may result in the improvement and creation of local institutions that facilitate public participation, which in turn help to foster a new model of governance that contains features of Multi-Level Governance.

The challenge of public participation

Grounding international modes of governance into National Forest Programmes

Abstract: In multilevel governance arrangements policies are coordinated across levels, usually in negotiations or networks of executives and representatives of special interests. Actors committed in such arrangements can hardly be held accountable by parliaments or citizens, and this is one of the main reasons for the democratic deficit of the EU. With the open method of coordination (OMC) the EU introduced a new mode of multilevel governance. The article focuses on the question whether problems of accountability can be solved by this mode. It is argued that the OMC framework includes two types of coordination. Whereas the dominating ‘deliberative’ mode does not improve accountability, the ‘competitive’ mode seems to be more promising. It supports transparency, reduces the costs of control for parliaments and stimulates public discussion on policies. However, multilevel coordination by policy competition at the lower levels of government does not work effectively under all conditions, and this therefore has to be carefully investigated.