section explores the concept of MLG and its use in multinational societies, while the second analyzes the issue of trust-mistrust and how it shapes central-regional-local relationships. The third, meanwhile, looks to a new dimension of international relations: the increasing role of substate entities in world debates and trade regulations. The fourth section looks more specifically at how globalization and MLG have reshaped the role and functions of political parties and party systems. Finally, since we are talking about the emergence of a new system of governance, the book studies its effects on the behavior and attitudes of parliamentary representatives.
I
In Chapter 1, Michael Stein and Lisa Turkewitsch provide an initial analysis of this concept, applying it to federations and decentralized unitary systems, such as those in Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). The concept of MLG, they argue, is a fairly recent one, emerging with the deepening integration of the European Union in the early 1990s, and drawing its basic structure from the ideas and institutions created in conjunction with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Moving from this historical context to present-day situations, Stein and Turkewitsch cite the United Kingdom and Germany as modern examples illustrating the limitations of and emerging patterns in MLG theory, first highlighting its strengths and weaknesses and comparing it to more traditional approaches, namely those of neo-functionalism, neo-institutionalism (both decentralized and multinational federalism), and centralized unitarism. They also include contributions to MLG theory that further highlight its utility as a comparative analytical tool, especially in relation to the UK and [19] Germany. In comparing these two EU polities – which share demographic and institutional similarities – they show that the ability to conceptualize these nations within traditional frameworks has eroded considerably. This is particularly the case for the UK, where the MLG framework, Stein and Turkewitsch suggest, may be best adapted to the British climate. And while the UK, in its political development, may require a suitable theoretical framework, Germany, for its part, has long-standing historical ties to MLG theory through the study of German federalism. MLG theory may be viewed as an extension of federalism, therefore, and may be used to analyze features of federal and decentralized unitary systems as well as the EU, as Stein and Turkewitsch note, citing the German state, which encompasses both types of MLG. Because it is better suited to analyzing the changes in these polities, both now and in the future, the flexible MLG framework, the authors believe, lends itself to a more accurate assessment of changing forms of governance than traditional comparative theories.
In his chapter on “Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance,” Yannis Papadopoulos analyzes democratic accountability in MLG systems. While MLG networks generate new and novel forms of accountability, he argues, its democratic dimension poses a problem, owing to the inherent structure of MLG networks and to issues of accountability. His chapter focuses chiefly on public and democratic forms of accountability, specifically as they pertain to the role played by actors in network governance and political problems stemming from accountability deficits. In doing so, he explains why decentralization and, increasingly, the lack of political authority in the market system generate problems for the quality of democracy in federated systems. These problems are caused by a lack of democratic accountability in the governance structure, stemming from four properties of network governance: Weak network visibility and uncoupling, leading to often informal and opaque decision-making processes; policy networks composed of actors only indirectly accountable to citizens and operating in isolation from democratic institutions; MLG, which can lead to fragmentation and compromise cooperation and (therefore) accountability; and the tendency towards peer accountability in networks, with the results that actors are primarily accountable to peer groups as opposed to the public. These network forms of governance, he suggests, give rise to a variety of problems related to accountability. Papadopoulos concludes by proposing a decision-making model for addressing accountability deficits through the use of institutional mechanisms.
Alain-G. Gagnon looks at how the concept of MLG redefines the political space. As our world grows increasingly heterogeneous, both on a societal and ideological level, theoretical frameworks used to conceptualize the space must take into account this diversity. This serves as the departure point for Gagnon’s argument whereby multinational federalism reflects the changing societal and political structures of our time. Gagnon cites Canada’s linguistic and cultural [20] diversity as an example of how the central government’s will can play a part in tensions between different cultural groups and thus erode the spirit of multinational federalism. While the multilevel approach highlights the role of sometimes overlooked actors and their contribution to government programs and policies, Gagnon notes that it fails to take into account their decision-making objectives, nor does it account for the dual pillars of federalism, namely the focus on the common populace and issues of governmental autonomy. In short, Gagnon suggests that the shortcomings of the multilevel approach serve to undermine democratic practices, making it particularly problematic as a framework for analyzing diverse national settings. In the belief that this approach ignores such issues as social structure, Gagnon notes that the multilevel approach is useful for analyzing efficacy and the economy in homogenous state structures, which he believes are rare in the modern world. Federalism, he argues, is capable of addressing these complexities.
II
Section 2 places the issue of trust-mistrust in institutions at the heart of the analysis, with Spain and Canada cited as the main examples. Francisco Llera Ramo explores the rise and fall of institutional trust in Spain using data from public surveys to emphasize that distrust and discontent with the political system, coupled with the erosion of institutional trust, could prove catastrophic for the functioning of the Spanish constitution. While Spain is in the midst of its longest-running period of constitutional democracy, public satisfaction with democracy and EU membership has been in decline since 2004, he notes. This mounting dissatisfaction may be partly attributed to the global financial crisis of 2007, he argues, adding that globalization is changing our democracies and the relationship between economy and politics, with citizens and parliaments becoming more and more distant from decision-making centres. This prolonged economic crisis has revealed deep and long-standing political cleavages in the Spanish system, contributing to public distrust and discontent with political parties and institutions. And while Spaniards have grown increasingly disaffected with politics, argues Francisco Llera Ramo, they also consider themselves to be well-informed politically. Despite this, Spanish protests have done little except to highlight discontent, with little or nothing in the way of concessions coming from political parties. This situation, if allowed to continue, could negatively impact Spain’s constitutional system, he predicts, adversely affecting the relationship between its citizenry and politics.
Guy Laforest and Camille Brunelle-Hamann bring their attention to bear to the Canadian case and the relationship between the federal government and the [21] provinces, more specifically Québec. The trust-mistrust scale is applied to highlight the collaborative-competitive nature of intergovernmental relations in Canada. Acknowledging that trust is dynamic and changes according to historical and political circumstances, Laforest and Brunelle-Hamann analyze the evolving relationship between the former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Québec, drawing important lessons on the value of trust in federal democracies. Using John Locke’s conceptualization of trust as consequential and revisable, Laforest and Brunelle-Hamann map the changes in Harper’s perception and distrust of Québec from his politically formative years up to the present day, dividing this period into three sections. Harper’s distrust of Québec began when he first joined the Reform Party in the late 1980s, they argue, and continued as Québec’s increasingly statist and interventionist political culture flourished. This reality, paired with language issues inside and outside Québec, contradicted Harper’s Hayekian conservative opposition to State intervention in economic and social affairs. And though Harper’s understanding of federalism included independent provinces and rampant decentralization, Laforest and Brunelle-Hamann note that any special status given to Québec would run counter to his vision of a Canada marked by individual, provincial and regional equality united under Canadian law. Harper’s distrust is portrayed as deep-seated and almost unwavering,
