and those of the multilevel EC/EU system arising from their mutual dependence on unanimous or nearunanimous voting procedures, which he as a “joint-decision trap”. In a 2006 paper (republished as a chapter in his edited 2009 volume), he continues to claim, with justification, that his original seminal analysis is “still basically valid”, even though the European Union had diluted its unanimity voting requirements to that of near-unanimity in 1992. But he concedes that this analysis needs to be complemented by a similar account of non-governmental policy-making processes in the “supranational-hierarchical” modes of governance by the European Community Bank (ECB) or European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the financial and judicial policy sectors.
Scharpf (2009) also reviews some theoretical extensions and modifications that he made to his joint-decision trap thesis in recent years. He notes in particular his focus on and use of a hybrid model during this phase, containing three different modes of EU-intergovernmental relations: 1) the “intergovernmental mode” (i.e. an “applied negotiation mode”) in which the “joint-decision trap” thesis readily applies and in which institutionalising national governments remain in full control at the lowest level of policy-making, 2) a combined or “mixed mode” of joint-decision-making that includes aspects of both intergovernmental negotiations and supranational centralisation) in which the “joint-decision trap” may or may not apply, and 3) a “supranational hierarchical mode” (exemplified by the European Court of Justice and the European Bank), in which the “joint-decision trap” does not apply. He also suggests ways that these impediments to efficient EU policy-making may be mitigated or overcome. He acknowledges that “the effectiveness of problem-solving in policy-making at the national as well as the European and international levels varies considerably from one policy field to another” (Scharpf 1997). And he agrees with other advocates of MLG that “the complexity of the multilevel European polity is not adequately represented by the single-level theoretical concepts of competing ‘intergovernmentalist’ and ‘supranationalist’ approaches.” But he also warns that “empirical research that focuses on multilevel interaction overemphasises the uniqueness of its objects of study or attempts to create novel concepts which are likely to remain contested by Europeanists and over-isolates this area from general theory and the political science mainstream” (Scharpf 2009). These arguments are, in our opinion, well [38] founded, and should be incorporated into an updated and current assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of MLG as an analytical concept.
The strengths and weaknesses of MLG
Simona Piattoni, in both her initial brief (2009) historical and conceptual overview of multilevel governance, and in her subsequent (2010) full-length volume on the conceptual, empirical and normative challenges posed by the theory of multilevel governance, defines MLG in broad and abstract terms as a dynamic three-dimensional concept involving 1) the relationship between the centre and periphery, 2) the relationship between state and society, and 3) the relationship between the domestic and the international. Each of these dimensions involves changes that occur at three analytical levels: 1) political mobilisation 2) policy-making and 3) policy restructuring. In this way, she claims to be able to generate a three-dimensional space within which to gauge MLG’s empirical scope and desirability in normative terms (Piattoni 2009:1).
But there are several major criticisms that one can level at the MLG concept, as Piattoni, among others, also notes. First, empirically it is unclear which phenomena MLG encompasses, and whether it can be significantly distinguished from “governance” in general or other similarly broad concepts. Secondly, its epistemological and ontological meaning is unclear, and it is not evident where it stands on the ladder of abstraction (Piattoni 2009: 1, citing Sartori 1984). Thirdly, normatively, it is uncertain whether political decisions made through MLG are more legitimate or better than decisions made through other processes. (for example, whether MLG ensures wider and fuller participation in decision-making). Fourthly, MLG includes a wide variety of actors within its political structures, including supranational bureaucrats in Brussels, major national governmental elites, and regional and local subnational authorities who have conflicting public philosophies and ideologies. This leaves the question open as to whether such a broad basis of political representation of its governing elites is not more likely to aggravate conflicts within the EU. Fifthly, and most importantly, MLG rests ultimately on the notion of a “network configuration”, rather than a “hierarchy”, an idea which lacks empirical precision, and is largely metaphorical in meaning. Its analytical utility has therefore been limited and open to question thus far (For example, see Piattoni 2009: 4).
But there are also several positive attributes and strengths in the multilevel governance approach, particularly in the current European context, that deserve recognition. For example, Gary Marks, in a seminal article in 1992, first questioned the sharply dichotomous view of European integration presented by neo-functionalists and intergovernmentalists. He particularly criticised their lack of attention to ‘flesh-and-blood’ actors” in their theories. He thereby [39] “asserted the autonomous explanatory force of a third paradigm, that of MLG” (Piattoni 2009: 2). Secondly, “MLG challenged the contention that non-state interests could only influence EU policy-making by operating through state representatives, and that they could not successfully challenge the ‘gate-keeping’ capacity of the central state” (Piattoni 2009:3). This insight was initially confined to cohesion policy, but later extended to environmental policy, agricultural policy and other important sectors of European policy. Thirdly, it is clear that the MLG concept is most appropriately applied to how the EU has actually operated since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1991, and it has contributed to what may accurately be described as a new type of polity which is in fact sui generis. Fourthly, we also acknowledge the utility of the subsequent (2003) theoretical contribution of Marks and Hooghe to the initial concept of MLG in their distinction between Types I and II MLG. Type I MLG applies to at least three and up to five different levels of governance: international, supranational regional, national, subnational regional, and local. It therefore constitutes a modification and extension of the usual definition of federal systems as containing two levels of government, national and regional, with different jurisdictions and memberships. Type II MLG is also an ideal type that describes the political decision-making role of units and groups that are not part of the public sector, including private interest groups like business, labour and agriculture and non-profit voluntary or third sector groups such as charitable organisations and social assistance groups. According to Piattoni, “Type II governance normally coexists with Type I governance in the same overarching polity, and is generally embedded in Type I governance” (Piattoni 2009, citing Marks and Hooghe 2003: 238). These two types of overlapping governance structures coexist in a dynamic relationship that has been described as a “negotiated arrangement” in a new institutional order. It is considered to provide “technically superior solutions to complex collective problems [by] staying at a sufficiently small scale not to impose sacrifices on individual preferences” (Piattoni 2009. MLG, then, is a valuable “multilevel concept” that is capable of “moving across and connecting different analytical planes”. It can also encompass much of the current literature on regionalism, which postulates an apparent causal correlation between increasing political devolution and growing civil society involvement in governance. (Piattoni 2009: 7).
In short, MLG is a concept that has both strengths and weaknesses, but is still very much in the process of theoretical framing and evolution. “It captures a significant number of policy processes, forms of political mobilisation, and trends towards polity restructuring to warrant its continued use in the future” (Piattoni 2010:13).
[40] MLG in the European Union and Intergovernmental Relations in the US
There are also some valuable insights to be gained by conducting a direct comparison of the governance patterns of MLG in the European Union and the patterns of internal intergovernmental relations in American federalism. Such a comparison was made recently by Edoardo Ongaro et al., eds. in their Governance and Intergovernmental Relations in the European Union and the United States: Theoretical Perspectives (2010). In their Introductory chapter, they define “intergovernmental
