twenty-first centuries. They contended that MLG describes more realistically and precisely than its theoretical antecedents and competitors the complex and gradually evolving state/social, centre/periphery (territorial), and domestic/international relationships that have shaped European political developments, especially since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. MLG is viewed as a more “actororiented” portrayal and a more “flesh and blood” representation of the causal forces underlying economic and political integration than the neo-functionalist dynamic. It is also considered to subsume more fully and depict more accurately the major role now played by non-state actors and agents in policy and [34] political decision-making processes in Europe than the state intergovernmentalist approach (Piattoni 2009: 3, citing Marks 1992).
Other analysts, on the other hand, have been much more critical of this concept. They claim that it is narrowly descriptive rather than broadly analytical (Bache 1998), too generally or ambiguously defined and conceptually “overstretched beyond usefulness” (Piattoni 2009, citing Sartori 1970), and too dismissive or neglectful of the dominant “gate-keeping” function of national governments (Moravcik 1993). Still others complain that it is a highly complex and multidimensional analytical device that is very difficult to use (Piattoni 2009: 7), that it exaggerates the post- and extra-constitutional nature of the forms and processes that it encompasses (Peters 2000), and that it accepts some highly debatable assumptions about the normative benefits that it contributes in its political problem-solving capacity (Scharpf 1997), or in the compromises it promotes (Pierre and Peters 2002).
MLG versus decentralised and multinational federalism and centralised unitarism (the Westminster model)
MLG versus decentralised and centralised “mature” and “emergent” federations
In an earlier paper (Stein and Turkewitsch 2008) we conducted a systematic comparison of the analytical / empirical aspects of the concepts of “federalism” and “multilevel governance” in terms of their origin, definition, evolution and the major academic criticisms directed at them. We argued that these two concepts can be viewed as mutually influencing ideas that lie on a conceptual continuum. MLG can be seen as an adaptation and extension of federalism in an age of increasingly close economic and communications globalisation. According to Marks and Hooghe (2002), these forces have tended to shift the fulcrum of the political and policy-making process vertically upwards from the nation-state level to the regional supranational or international level (e.g. in environmental and foreign trade matters). They have also tended to push this process vertically downwards to regional subnational and local levels. And they have fostered a shift outward (or horizontally) to the private or voluntary non-profit sectors (i.e. the “turn to governance”). As a result, MLG serves as a more inclusive and more applicable term for political systems having multiple tiers of autonomous decision-making than does federalism in today’s complex polycentric political decision-making world. And there has been a significant [35] degree of academic ‘cross-pollination’ between these two concepts so that “the interactive governance process that is given…a prominent place in both concepts is now regarded as a highly flexible, informal and dynamic relationship” (Stein and Turkewitsch 2008: 26).
Our subsequent contributions to this debate about the relative merits of “multilevel governance” versus “federalism” have focused specifically on the relationship between MLG and federalism as analytical tools applied comparatively to different types of federal systems outside the European Union. We compared changing patterns of intergovernmental relations in both “mature” and “emergent” parliamentary and presidential federations, and found a consistent trend, albeit to different degrees, toward the evolution and use of MLG governance patterns and networks in each. But we were unable to identify one type of federation (e.g. a parliamentary federation) as being more likely to generate these MLG patterns than another (e.g. a presidential federation). And we could not yet indicate with any precision the specific institutional, cultural and socio-economic conditions that produce and shape these MLG patterns.
MLG versus multinational federalism
In recent years, this debate has shifted somewhat to a comparison between multilevel governance and multinational federalism. The exponents of the latter (multinational federalism) view MLG as a concept which gives priority to the underlying values of efficiency and political stability rather than community or justice for its minority national groups and citizens. Therefore, as an analytical tool, MLG is viewed as biased in favour of the dominant elites and the status quo (Gagnon 2011). This critique of MLG is one which is focused on normative rather than analytical and empirical differences between the two concepts. Although important, due to lack of space, we will be unable to address these normative concerns in this paper.
In our view, “federalism” and “multilevel governance” share a number of common characteristics. They both can be understood in at least three distinct ways: 1) as descriptive terms applied to concrete political systems, 2) as analytical/empirical constructs, and 3) as normatively positive or desirable forms. With respect to the first (concrete systems) they each perform similar political functions, including that of dividing power in order to combat authoritarianism, managing conflict and promoting cooperation between internal groups, and protecting minority rights. They have also both increasingly abandoned an exclusive emphasis on territoriality in devising methods of political representation, and now opt for a combination of territorial and functional bases of representation in the performance of political decision-making tasks. There has also been a notable trend toward increased emphasis on ethical and normative [36] concerns (or both) in decision-making, increased stress on the whole person rather than on the atomistic individual in societal action, and less attention to statist and hierarchical models of administration. However, as analytical and empirical constructs, the two concepts still have some important differences, such as: 1) federalism has a narrower and more restrictive reach than MLG, 2) federalism encourages greater formalisation of policy decisions and processes, 3) federalism fosters a broader climate of competitiveness, and 4) federalism tends to produce a more efficient, less costly and less time-consuming problem-solving governance process than MLG (Stein and Turkewitsch 2008).
MLG versus centralised unitarism (the Westminster Model)
The centralised unitary system model (or Westminster Model) refers to parliamentary unitary systems that are centred in political power terms on the national political executive or cabinet. This is the focus of a study by Bache and Flinders on Multilevel Governance and the British State (2004) with which we largely concur. They accept the point of view of most political analysts of the UK that that political system prior to 1998 can be described as a prototype of the centralised unitary system in the pattern of intergovernmental relations that operated between the national government, based in the Westminster Parliament in London, and the country’s various political and bureaucratic decisionmakers representing its territorial regions in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries But their rather different argument, is that MLG works better as an analytical construct when applied to post-devolution UK intergovernmental relations since 1998. They maintain that the UK since that time has been transformed from a centralised unitary state of the “Westminster model” prototype into a decentralised unitary state in its intergovernmental relations involving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (but not England) (Bache and Flinders 2004). Thus, Charlie Jeffery and Daniel Wincott refer to it after 1998 as a “lopsided state,” and Hogwood et al. (2000) describe it as “asymmetrical devolution.” Others described it as a “quasi-federal” system. There will be more discussion of this issue in later sections of the paper.
[37] Other Recent Theoretical Contributions to MLG
The concept of the “joint-decision trap” revisited
In an early contribution to MLG theory in 1988 that was subsequently widely cited,
