Multi-level governance in European Union

 The power of state is eroded into 3 levels:

There are two models discussing the role of nation states within supranational institutions.

Decision-making within state-centric model is suitable for international institutions as UN, WTO where the majoritarian principles support the national interests. European Union follows different system according to the field of change. The Council of Ministers follows the rule of qualified majority when deciding about internal market issues, research policy or environment. Nonetheless, Council of Ministers doesn’t hold the majority power within EU.

After the Maastricht treaty co-decision and cooperation play key role in European policy making. Member states within institutions collectively participate on the treaty processes, which make national government constraint during the negotiations to control supranational agents. Agent theory describes the principle of nation states unable to solve some ambiguities. Therefore, they create agents, who are trying to solve the issue (in European Commission/ ECJ) based on interstate agreements. Unfortunately, EU contains many members with different principles and even the actions of Commission and ECJ are merely as agents because Commission legitimates preferences according to the treaty not nation state and it is the role of ECJ’s to activate constitutionalization of the treaties, not of nation state. Even the act of change is impossible because the member states can just collectively block the decision. Another reason of ineffective collective control is information symmetries, which are weakened by the small fraction of informed staff within the institution. The last defective outcome is the regulations based on mutual mistrust lead to unintended consequences, which EU is trying to avoid.

The scheme describes the policy- making in European Union based on multi-level governance. The main policy initiation belongs to the Commission because its role is to investigate feasibility of EU policies based on common opinions, agreements, resolutions or recommendations. The European Council and European Parliament (EP) hold the power to propose not draft their own agenda. There are other interested groups, lobbies or regional offices participating in the initiation process. Therefore the whole system does not distinguish between strata but works as network of different levels of representatives.

The actual decision making process is based on co-operation between EP, Council and Commission. Council possesses the legislative decision only with support of two institutions or other. The European parliament is broker between Council and Commission, because as legislative branch cooperates with Council and even has possibility of absolute veto. Council is locked in with contestation and cooperation within the system.

The implementation process works within Commission and from there to the ground-level of policy structure. With the Commission participates in the process comitology, which represents experts outside from central executive, mostly subnational officials or interested groups.

European Court of Justice preforms adjudication through balancing power between national courts and national political authorities. ECJ holds legal foundation for integration of European polity and possesses functional goals- the treaties to adhere. National courts may apply doctrine of direct effect and receive authoritative guidance by ECJ.

The aim of the article was to diminish the hierarchical idea of nation state ruling over supranational and subnational level. European Union works based on the structural institutions which cooperate with different NGOs, interests groups, lobbyist, private businesses. This creates flexible network where wider consensus could be met. Model of multi-level governance offers it not only to supranational level but also to national.

Sources:

Börzel T, Heard-Lauréote K. 2009. Networks in EU Multi-Level Governance: Concepts and Contributions. Journal of Public Policy 29(2): 135-151.

HOOGHE, Liesbet a Gary MARKS. Multi-level governance and european integration. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, c2001, xvi, 251 s. Governance in Europe. ISBN 0742510204.

Networks in EU Multi-level Governance

Summary of ‘Networks in EU Multi-Level Governance: Concepts and Contributions’ (Tanja A. Börzel and Karen Heard-Lauréote, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, Networks in European Union Governance (Aug., 2009), pp. 135-151 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40542335 Accessed: 04-03-2015 14:54 UTC)

While policy-making in the EU involves a multitude of public and private actors at different levels of government, how should we conceptualize European Union-as a form of governance by networks or governance in networks? This article draws attention to the networks they create. It analyses networks’ multiple functions within EU policy and normative implications. Also it looks into and deals with different views and of scholars towards the ambivalent impact of networks, their extent to which networks may provide value to European integration and improve the quality of governance, the importance, meaning and influence of networks to the democratic deficit and legitimacy deficit in EU, the confrontation of networks as more exclusion than inclusion mechanisms.

The multiple meanings of networks

In the article two dimensions of distinctions of networks are distinguished:

1. Networks as a typology of interest intermediation and a specific form of governance.

The quantitative approach --> analyses the relations between actors in terms of their cohesion, structural equivalence and spatial representation;

The qualitative approach --> focuses more on the content of interactions between actors;

2. Networks as the specific types of interest intermediation that implies different forms of institutionalized exchange relations between the state, business and civil society. The presumption can be made that networks reflect status or power of certain interests in a policy area and have impact on its outcomes.

Network concept usually it is used as analytical concept featured by 'structural relationships, interdependencies and dynamics between actors in politics and policy-making’ (Schneider 1988, p. 2). Also, network concept covers many organizations which interact with each other but at the same time they are separate and interdependent of resources and interests. Furthermore, networks are certain form of governance where informal negotiation system among the actors exists and where obligatory and connected decisions are decided and accomplished by them. As well, these actors combine their actions through voluntary agreements between private and public actors, where these two group of actors become partners and collaborate. Despite that public actors remain the actors who have the role of central decision-makers and implementers of EU policies. 

The European Union: Governance in rather than by networks

The White Paper on Governance (2001)-was published by initiative of European Commission. The Paper reflects forms of governance based on networks. The latter are understood as the best way to handle the challenges that EU is confronting nowadays. Also it refers to the declining effectiveness of EU policy-making and lack of democratic legitimacy (Joerges, Meny and Weiler 2001). 

EU policy-making -> governance in networks. Networks consisting of private and public actors, formal and informal networks. ’Forma’ networks-ranging from supranational hierarchy, intergovernmental negotiations to market competition and rare forms of genuine network governance. Also, they can support all the forms of governance in the EU. While, “informal” relations have potential added value, if public and private actors have relevant resources and trust each other.

Private and public actors use their resources and relative interest to solve common problems. Meantime, the European Commission strategically try to strengthen the position of networks in EU policy-making. At the same time, networks provide important power to the European Commission, which by using private actors’ resources (expertise, acceptance) shape the formulation and implementation of EU policies due to its interests. While it takes advantage of private actor resources to increase its action capacity, the Commission seeks to preserve its autonomy and has little interest in extending the involvement of private actors beyond consultations (Obradovic and Alonso Vizcaino 2007).

Governance in networks: effective and legitimate?

The appearance of networks related to the decreasing effectiveness of hierarchy in domestic politics and absence of hierarchy in international politics. 

Effective governance --> solves problems, copes with and satisfies the demands; contributes to the maintenance of political systems.

Exchange system --> creates reliance and co-operation à private actors ↔ public actors: private actors offer information, expertise, financial means, political support (needed for making and enforcing EU law); private actors get ability to have influence on the contents of EU norms and rules. 

Five major mechanisms through which networks can increase effectiveness and added value:

1. a flexible nature; 
2. avenues of access to decision makers; 
3. the capacity to provide multiple resources; 
4. networks are aggregative institutions that can exchange and negotiate; 
5. a socialization function-mechanism for deepening the European integration process. 

It is important for networks to understand their interdependence, develop trust and to put common interests above self-interests in order to increase the effectiveness of policy-making.

Legitimacy --> networks are theoretically based on the voluntary cooperation of public and private actors, and its legitimacy in policy-making depends on scope conditions. The actors can be ‘rulers’ and ‘the ruled’. Accordingly, not all policy decisions correspond interests presented in the networks. 

Originally policy networks were thought to contribute to output legitimacy by improving the policies through the involvement of private actors but not to increase the democratic input quality of governance at the national level as well as EU level.

However, EU actors have become especially preoccupied with the EU’s so-called ‘democratic-deficit’. European Commission, invest to increase input legitimacy by enhancing inclusiveness and transparence of networks and through private actors’ participation in policy-making. Also, the Commission has adopted a voluntary register for interest representatives, held a series of stakeholders’ discussions, reinforced the application of the Commission’s consultation standards, and implemented a policy on the publication of the beneficiaries of EU funds. 

Multiple Identities

Introduction

The EU was founded by Jean Monnet, Robert Schauman, Konrad Adenauer, Paul-Henri Spaak and Alcide de Gasperi. The main reasoning behind founding the EU was as a response to the horrors of war that had happened in Europe and the founders thought that creating this Union would help to prevent another war from happening and could decrease nationalism in the nation states. The founders of EU were sure that a unified European Identity could be the outcome of European integration. The founders saw stable supranational institutions as a way of achieving this goal. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 51)

In today’s Europe the identity has shifted to the left and is not a passive outcome of the integration process as it was before.

Fritz Scharpf has said on this matter that “As long as the democratic legitimacy of European governance must rest primarily on the agreement of democratically accountable national governments, the citizens of countries whose governments are outvoted have no reason to consider such decisions as having democratic legitimation” (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 52)

Some other scholars have taken a different approach and counter argue that it is not reasonable to deepen the democratic institutions to oppose the democratic deficit if a Europe-wide collective identity does not exist. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 52)

Karl Deutsch and Ernst Haase both have said similar things about the European identity and integration. According to Deutsch the idea would be to move towards a sense of community in Europe and that the main goal should not only be exclusive control. Haase like Deutsch believes in the coexistence of national identities with a European identity and said that one would not replace the other. Haase also stated that there is a possibility of “tiered multiple loyalties” meaning that there are multiple overlapping sources of governance that work at different levels.  (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 52-53)

Territorial attachments in the EU

There are 3 basic types of territorial identity. Two of these types of identity describe an individual territorial identity and the third one describes a territory with multiple identities. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.53)

In Figure 1 A represents a territory with multiple identities, B represents a territory with an exclusive identity and C represents a territory with little or non territorial identity. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 53)

This however does not mean that all territorial identities fall just into one of the corners of the figure, many or even most territorial identities are somewhere between the different points of the triangle.  (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 53)

 The Unattached territorial identities

Individuals in this category don’t have a strong attachment to any territory or territorial community. There are not many individuals in this category according to studies. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.56)

Figure 1.

Source: Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 54

The Exclusive territorial identity

The individuals in this category are attached to one or maximum two territories or territorial identities. According to studies the sample of individuals in this group is bigger than in the unattached category. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001,p. 57)

The Multiple territorial identities

The individuals in this category have strong attachments to multiple territories or territorial communities at three or all four levels. According to studies there are more individuals in this group than in the previous two. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.57-58)

Explaining territorial identity

There are many reasons why and how territorial identities have changed over time.

1.      War

War and colonies reshaped and reorganizes the territorial attachment of individuals. Almost all the accounts of rise of nationalism and national states in Western Europe have a conflict source of identity. Coercive conflicts deepen the national identity and make it more exclusive. War usually creates an extreme form of the “us versus them” mentality, especially war between states. On the other hand, if one looks at history, war has also helped to integrate diverse groups, like in the cases of USA and the Soviet Union and has helped to nationalize territories, like with the UK, France and Spain. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 60-61)

Although war shapes identity, that identity also shapes the communities willingness to go to war by for example strengthening the ethnical community ties.  (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.61)

2.      Culture

Culture is a very important aspect when talking about shaping identities. The key elements of culture that shape the territorial attachments are ethnicity, language and social transactions. When talking about the EU one knows that in this aspect the EU is very diverse and shall most likely stay diverse. One of the most pronoun hypothesizes in regards to this was created by Karl Deutsch saying that territorial identities shaped as populations integrate socially and economically (p.62)

One could conclude from this point of view that there is a shift towards an European identity that comes from the increasing co-operation between the different nation states. Although there are exceptions to this hypothesis where an increase in the social interaction can lead to intercommunal hostility. For example most of the political parties that are far right are very opposed to integration and campaign on the immigration issues. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p. 62-63)

3.      Economic Interests

Many scholars have found that there is a link between territorial identity and the perceptions of economic prospects. The main idea behind this aspect is the labour mobility that comes with open markets and less-skilled workers, who have more to lose with market integration. Although there is freedom of labour mobility across borders, this freedom is usually limited by the linguistic barriers. Many studies suggest that there is a link between the economic evaluations and support for the European integration. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.63-64)

4.      Political Institutions

Political institutions such as the parliament, courts, civil services etc can provide a focus for identity by being symbols for a territorial community. It is theorized that this link between political institutions and identity is more subtle than the linkage between identity and the previous aspects. For example in the EU the institutions are more focused on the outputs of the policies rather than the democratic output. It is stated in the text that the effects of political institutions on shaping identity may be dependent on to which extent shared citizenship becomes meaningful. Although the link is a bit more subtle one can say that the link does not go only one way. The relations between identity and political identity seem to be mutually reinforcing. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.64-65)

Conclusion

Identity is not something that just happens to individuals but it is rather something that develops as being a part of communities and socializing within those said communities. In today’s EU the national and individual identities are diverse and are being mobilized by political parties, especially by the far right parties that campaign for nations and against European integration. As for individuals in Europe a very big group of them has multiple identities by for example feeling attached to multiple countries, regions or communities. One can say that the EU is a multi-level polity based on multiple identity. (Hooghe & Marks, 2001, p.65-66)

Source:

Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary “Multi-Level Governance and European Integration”, 2001, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc. USA pages 51-66

State-Centric vs. Multi-Level Governance (summary of Marks; Hooghe; Blank: 1996) + additional ideas & comments

Reflecting on from political (nationalist) parties nowadays often asked question "Democracy or European Integration?" the processes going on within the European arena from the 80ties on might give a hint on the basic theories or ideologies that led to this dominant assumption. What are theories that represent a stronger state perspective or a shared, collective power?

Many articles can be found online where actors ask things like: “EU: is Britain still a sovereign state?" (see below for link) and that discussion leads us right into conceptualizing these two theories of governance in European Union policy making process.

What is state-centric governance?

European Integration shouldn't challenge the autonomy of nation states. Supranational actors exist to fist, aid member states and second, to share information and come up with basic arguments. The policy outcomes show the interests and relative power of the member states. States are seen as ultimate decision makers which have individual and collective control over outcomes. No one is forced to integrate themselves deeper than they want. The actors are state executives and they come together in a European arena.

What is multi-level governance?

The authority and policy making influence is shared across multiple levels (which are subnational, national and supranational level). Through multi-level governance bits of direct control and authority slipped away from member states; it means the modes of political control over things have changed. There is a basis for collective decision making. EU Integration has weakened the states as they don't have any longer a monopoly over the policy arena. European Parliament, European Commission and the European Court are independent, supranational institutions which have an influence in policy making. States do not any longer monopolize the links between domestic and European actors but they are still an integral and powerful part of the EU.

Policy making in the EU from a state-centric and multi-level governance perspective:

Policy making in the EU: policy initiation → decision making → implementation → adjudication.
(see ordinary legislative procedure based on community method)

State-centric model: There is a pattern of state executives that dominate policy making. European Institutions should be controlled by states. National governments should and are maintaining sovereignty and control the mobilization process of supranational interests.

Multi-level governance model: The European Council and the Council of Ministers have shared decision authority with supranational institutions. The individual state must decide collectively with others to deliver the outcomes they wish. The mobilization of supranational interests happens in the political arena/ the European Union as public space and pressures state executives.

What benefits and challenges might there be for choosing a multi-level governance perspective?Are states/national governments nowadays the key actors in European Union decision making, should they be?

If your personal answer to that question is maybe and no, then a multi-level governance perspective might be helpful. But many argue that nation states are still the key actors of the Union: “the EU is far from a unified state and far from a satisfactory Europe-wide democratic order, while substantial sovereignty still remains with the EU's member governments" (Global Policy Forum 2015).

A huge benefit of this perspective is that in the long term, political decisions agreed on -in different European levels where nation states are not the key actors, would limit short term actions of national actors that have in mind their own benefits and voting cycle. Yes, states are powerful institutions and they emerged due to good reasons and they have control over people in their territory, but what about goals that a larger community has, what about unpopular decisions or topics like environmental goals that might not be tackled by national parties? The European Union is at a point where it needs to be an active global actor as well, as normative power would many argue and this role might not be identifiable when a state-centric model would be favored.

The questions that came up when thinking about those two dominant positions was as so often more a discussion on basic principles, values and visions about societies, individuals living within a territory (EU) that could be utopian. Like on the national level people or groups on the European level follow different ideologies and goals. But it seems like a new polity emerged that can no longer be explained only by state-centric theories.

Are State-centric and multi-level governance the only appearing modes of governance within the EU?

Remembering a book I once red, Policies and Policy Processes of the European Union (Buonanno, Laurie; Nugent, Neill: 2013), I know that there are in fact other modes of governance. Supranational centralization, intensive transgovernmentalism or the so called “new modes of governance”. When thinking in general about the European Integration process, one will see that the beginning definitely was based on state-centric ideas, following modes in which states cooperated more- maybe intensive transgovernmentalism, then multi-level governance and even later supranational centralization and new modes of governance could have followed. But even if this assumption is wrong about the evolving process of governance models I think it is important that all those modes are still part of the practice and especially those theories that decrease state control are not met completely in their constellation and goals. State-centric and multi-level governance are probably just the two extremes on a range of far more modes of governance and therefore important to be informed about.

Sources:

This blog post (summary) is largely based on Marks, Gary; Hooghe, Liesbet; Blank, Kermit (1996): European Integration from the 1980s: StateCentric Vs. Multi-Level Governance. In: Journal of Common Market Studies 34, 3 (1996): 341-378.

Global Policy Forum 2015: Political Integration and National Sovereignty. https://www.globalpolicy.org/nations-a-states/political-integration-and-national-sovereignty-3-22.html [access: 10.3.2015]

Example of media representation mentioned in the beginning:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198513/EU-is-Britain-still-a-sovereign-state.html

Welcome to our blog!

We are a group of students from the University of Southern Denmark studying MSc in European Studies and this blog is meant to layout, discuss and understand the theoretical framework of Multi-level governance and its influence on European Integration and the functionality of the EU.

To learn more about the application of these theories in regional levels please look at our sister blog "No One Can Act Alone: Multi-level Governance".

Please feel free to ask, comment or be involved in any other way.

More useful information here: