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.