simon.fiala@seznam.

cz

George, S. Chapter 7: Multi-level Governance and the European Union

In Bache, I. & M. Flinders (eds). Multi-level Governance. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press, 2004.

Abstract:
Stephen George considers the application of multilevel governance to developments in the European Union. While multilevel governance developed from and has been most often applied to studies of the European Union, its capacity to explain developments remains strongly contested. This chapter outlines the main applications of the concept in a number of policy areas and evaluates the position of multilevel governance alongside competing approaches in the current state of the debate on the European Union.

Notes:
Multi-level governance: a term devised to describe the specific organization of the EU o The concept extensively used to describe the governing processes of the EU o Attracted severe critique it is nothing new, but an amalgam of existing theories it provides a description of the European Union, but not a theory it misconceptualizes SNAs (subnational actors) it ignores the international level of interaction o aims at overcoming of the intergovernmental/supranational dichotomy 108 the intergovernmental/supranational dichotomy the intergovernmental side: Hoffmann and Milward o Liberal Intergovernmentalism (Moravcsik) the supranational side: neofunctionalists (Haas, Lindberg, Schmitter) o Sandholtz, Zysman, Stone Sweet Neofunctionalism (the supranational side on the integration of the EU) o Named after the concept of functional spillover Explains how processes take on a life of their own once spun into action by national governments 109 o Premise: modern industrial economies are made up of interconnected parts, so that it is not possible to isolate one sector from others Spillovers necessarily emerge Once a sector is integrated, all functionally related sectors have to be integrated as well to make the system work o a theory of the politics of European integration embraced privileged role attributed to supranational institutions, particularly the European Commission a genuine autonomy; ability to put pressure on governments o a pluralist political process assumed centrality of interest groups in the dynamics of integration acting as a bulwark protecting the integration process (advantageous to them) against governments revisionism and attempts to restore sovereign national policymaking

simon.fiala@seznam.cz Commission involving interest groups in European decision making, winning powerful allies functional departments of state seeking to form alliances with the Commission and with their counterparts in other member states Governments faced with an alliance of their own civil servants o Hoffmans critique Pluralist version of the political process? Governments first and foremost respond to the demands of electoral politics national interest o Moravcsiks innovation Reverting to pluralist foundations of the neofunctionalist analysis pluralist political process will be confined to the national level (not expanding significantly into the supranational arena) Interest groups will not even be able to take consistent position on European integration. Instead, they will react to each issue on its merits seen from their current perspective. A balance of domestic pressures emerges. Governments take it in into the negotiations about integration as expression of their interest. Theory applied to Single European Act (1991) o The development on the supranational side on the integration of the EU the departure from neofunctionalism The idea of the ability of the Commission to form alliances with interest groups to lever governments into agreeing to more integration widely adopted The debate on the integration is very vigorous and there have been substantial theoretical innovation adopted on both sides The Relationship of Multi-level Governance to the Intergovernmental/Supranational Dichotomy o revives functionalism (despite its stated attempts to make a distance) the theories share a common position on the role of supranational institutional actors o The theory reverts some of the innovations adopted by Stone Sweet and Sandholtz Such as the idea that the Commission will form coalitions with subnational publicsector actors o Multi-level governance presents a special case within one aspect of the neofunctionalist analysis 112 multi-level governance has effectively taken the place of neofunctionalism as the alternative theory to intergovernmentalism neofunctionalism minus the functional spillover (therefore a need for a new name) more comprehensive than the theories of supranational governance intergovernmentalmulti-level governance debate Moravcsik (Liberal Intergovernmental position) vs. Gary Marks and Liesbet Hooghe (multi-level governance) Dealing with the critique: o Multi-level Governance provides a Description of the European Union, but not a Theory lacks a causal motor of integration or a testable set of hypotheses

simon.fiala@seznam.cz The theory describes the EU as a political system already in motion. Venturing to seek original causes would be unreasonable. There is some answer provided o Three possibilities why government leaders have conceded part of their decision-making authority 1. Because they want to Because they are dedicated to the idea of united Europe Because it is the only way how to break a stalemate 2. They see an advantage to themselves in particular cases E.g. the concession of authority to supranational institutions is the cheapest option in achieving a particular policy result 3. because they are powerless to stop it happening principalagent theory 115 o multiple principals finding it difficult to rein agents in cooperation with each other + wish to tie the hands of their successors + wish to avoid the political consequences of unpopular decisions Multi-Level governance theory: o national governments surrender authority to supranational agents o has an impact on SNAs: resources they have traditionally used to engage with decisionmaking bodies in order to achieve autonomy have been eroded o SNAs adopt strategies: intensify communication with the new decisionmaking centre (Brussels/ Commission officials) intensify communication with each other demand information from the government, seek new channels of influence to be formalized campaign for direct representation participate in the Committee of the Regions fight back: erect additional barriers to treaty amendment demand subsidiarity o These responses will set up a national/subnational dynamic that will further pull authority away from the national centre Lacks a testable set of hypotheses 116 Not true: multi-level governance does generate hypotheses multi-level governance partially restates the hypotheses of neofunctionalism, except for the functionalist part o there has been observed increase of activity of SNAs on the supranational level, yet unevenly distributed across the EU points to a further refinement of the multi-level governance theory, damages intergovernmentalist assumptions 3

simon.fiala@seznam.cz it is irrelevant whether it is a theory, a paradigm or a compelling metaphor as long as it stimulates production of knowledge on relations within the EU governance multi-level governance needs to be combined with other theories Historical institutionalism? Liberal Intergovernmentalism? It needs to fill out its own framework by borrowing from other theories BUT: resorting to the dichotomy of rational choice and social constructivist approaches should be avoided Multi-level Governance and New Institutionalism may form a good partnership Multi-level governance overstates the autonomy of subnational authorities multi-level governance makes no flat assumptions about the autonomy of SNAs The case of the RECHAR: Did British government have to give way to a new alliance of SNAs with the Commission and invest additional funds in a preferred project? / Did it just absorb the dotation without making concessions on its capability to allocate? sometimes SNAs were empowered by the ongoing integration, sometimes not SNAs may benefit from the possibility to act on an extended playground o E.g. the empowerment of the SNAs+Commission in the case of RECHAR in Britain Additional restriction can arise to them from the shift of power o E.g. the disempowerment of the SNAs in the case of Volkswagen in Land of Saxony Multi-level governance adopts a topdown view of subnational authorities The theory is topdown in terms of the relationship between national central governments and supranational EU institutions, and grants insufficient agency to SNAs Quite on the contrary, the record suggests that SNAs are actively claiming a role in EU policy making. The Multi-level Governance theory seems to have appropriate concepts to explain it. Multi-level governance focuses on subnational authorities to the exclusion of other subnational actors That has been largely true there should be no problem in extending the focus; the theory can be similarly applied to other actors it should be also extended to cover the disaggregation of the black box of the central government Multi-level governance mistakes evidence of subnational authority mobilization at European level as evidence of influence Yes, there has been mobilization of SNAs, but it had only a limited impact; The movement outside of the confines of the national state has been for the most part symbolic; The mobilization help SNAs to gather information, rather than exercise influence The emergence of European domestic policy SNAs pro-actively claim a role in determining national European policy, which will occur where EU policy impinges on the domestic policy competences of SNAs Supports the hypothesis of two-level game 4

simon.fiala@seznam.cz Multi-level governance ignores the international level of interaction i.e. wider world politics have been ignored Not a problem of the theory, but of the specific analyses produced up to date. There is nothing inevitable about ignoring the EUs role in the global politics within the Multi-level governance approach. three-level game Multi-level governance must be understood as an amalgam of existing theories. It is: o A legitimate alternative to state-centred perspectives o A theory of what sort of organization the European Union is Sets testable hypotheses responsibility and authority is being shared with and contested by other actors hierarchy of levels of governance is being eroded o