Multilevel Governance in the European Union Gary Marks

1
Multilevel Governance in the European
UnionGary Marks
2
(No Transcript)
3
Non-intersecting jurisdictions . . .
26 Régions
100 Départements

• . . . at a limited number of levels
• . . . across vastly different scales

342 Arrondissements
4,032 Cantons
36,680 Communes
4
Virtues and vices of multilevel governance
1. Efficiency 2. Peace 3. Democracy 4.
Moral hazard 5. Corruption 6. Protest 7.
Survival
5
1 Efficiency

• Centralize where necessary
• encompass relevant externalities
• exploit economies of scale
• Decentralize where possible
• Eurospeak subsidiarity
• Lack of flexibility, innovation at central level
• Local circumstances and needs can be better
  identified at the local level
• Decentralization facilitates citizens
  participation in decision-making which induces
  better quality services

6

• Match the scale of government to the scale of
  problem
• Local town services
• Regional water management
• National health system, national defense
• Continental cross-border pollution
• Global climate change

7

• Why multilevel governance
• NOW?
• From War (-1945) to Peace (1945-)
• Affluence
• welfare, education, microeconomic policy,
  environment, health, transport

8



9

• Regionalization in Europe

BRITAIN Scottish, Welsh parliaments, 1997
FRANCE Elected regional governments,1982
GERMANY Federal constitution, 1949
ITALY Elected regional governments, 1976. Strengthened, 1996.
SPAIN Autonomous regions, 1978. Strengthened, 1993 1998.
10
Regionalization in Europe
BELGIUM Regions, communities, created in 1970. Strengthened 1980, 1989. Federal country since 1993.
BRITAIN Scottish, Welsh parliaments, 1997, 2001, 2008 London 2001
FRANCE Elected regions, 1982 strengthened in 1986.
GERMANY Federal constitution, 1949 reforms in 1964 and 1966
ITALY Elected regions, 1976. Strengthened,1996, 2001.
SPAIN Autonomous regions, 1978. Strengthened, 1993 1998.
SLOVAKIA Regions created, 1996 elected since 2001.
11
(No Transcript)
12
2 Peace

• Allow distinct communities self-rule
• Combine communities in shared rule
• Encourage overarching identities

13
Ted Robert Gurr, Minorities at Risk
14
3 Dictators hate it

• Dictators centralize authority
• Democratic leaders may (or may not) want
  multilevel governance

15
regionalization after democracy
16
Democratization facilitates regionalism
17
4 Moral Hazard

• Problem scenario
• A) Spending is local
• B1) taxation is national
• or
• B2) Debts are national
• GREECE!

18
5 Corruption

• What if
• Weak rule of law
• Corrupt social norms
• Inadequate capacity at local level
• where a reform mind-set is not present at the
  local level
• BUT what if strong supranational institutions?
  E.g the EU.

19
6 Protest

• Basic dilemma
• Nationalism versus supranationalism

20
IDENTITY
Source Commission (2002 survey), Public Opinion
(Eurobarometer 2001)
21
Elites and public on Europe
Sources a) elites, Intune (Fall 2007) b) public
opinion Eurobarometer 68 (Fall 2007)
22
Criticism on the radical right
23
REFERENDA ON EUROPE
24
7 Survival

• A growing number of policy problems are
• transnational and
• b) distributional

25

• climate change
• nuclear proliferation
• financial regulation
• failing states
• biodiversity loss
• ocean exhaustion

• deforestation
• overfishing
• nuclear waste disposal
• refugees

These are INTERNATIONAL problems with winners and
losers
26

• national sovereignty is seriously suboptimal

27
3.9
11.1
85.0
6.6
93.3
28

• The European Union is the worlds most important
  experiment in multilevel governance

29

• Multilevel governance must be a priority.
• José Manuel Barroso, President of the European
  Commission, 2009.
• Develop as quickly as possible practical
  measures . . . with a view to strengthening
  multilevel governance.
• October 2008 resolution of the European
  Parliament
• European Union Charter for
• Multilevel Governance
• CoR 2009

30
(No Transcript)