Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:07:09.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-hierarchical policy coordination in multilevel systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2010

Nicole Bolleyer  and
Tanja A. Börzel
Nicole Bolleyer*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Tanja A. Börzel*
Affiliation:
Center for European Integration, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
*
* E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
* E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In theory, lower-level governments (provinces, regional governments, or member states) operating in multilevel systems within and beyond the nation-state can choose from a wide repertoire of modes of policy coordination to solve collective problems non-hierarchically. These modes range from unilateral policy emulation over informal intergovernmental agreements to binding interstate law. The modes that governments are willing and capable to use, however, vary considerably across multilevel systems which affects governments’ collective problem-solving capacity. This paper argues that the nature of executive–legislative relations in lower-level governments is crucial to account for this variation. The presence (or absence) of power sharing shapes the willingness of lower-level governments to enter agreements that greatly constrain individual government autonomy. Power-concentrating governments, as opposed to power-sharing ones, tend to avoid such agreements. The type of power sharing affects the capacity to enter agreements that require legislative approval. Compulsory power-sharing governments, as opposed to voluntary power-sharing governments, should find it difficult to enter such agreements, since this type of power sharing invites inter-branch divides. To substantiate these arguments, we apply them to Canada, Switzerland, the United States, and the European Union.

Keywords

multilevel governanceintergovernmental relationsnon-hierarchical policy coordinationcomparative federalism
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 2010 , pp. 157 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abderhalden, U. (1999), Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der interkantonalen Zusammenarbeit, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Armstrong, K., Begg, I.Zeitlin, J. (2008), ‘JCMS symposium: EU governance after Lisbon’, Journal of Common Market Studies 46(2): 413–450.Google Scholar
Arnold, D.S.Plant, J. (1994), Public Official Associations and State and Local Government, Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.Google Scholar
Bakvis, H., Baier, G. (2005), ‘Democracy, parliamentary reform and federalism’. Working Paper, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. Retrieved 11 May 2010 from http://www.queensu.ca//iigr/working/Interdependence/Bakvis2005.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bartolini, S. (2005), Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building and Political Structuring between the Nation-State and the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, A. (2004a), ‘Multilevel Governance – Governance in Mehrebenensystemen’, in A. Benz (ed.), Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, A. (2004b), ‘Institutionelle Regime in Bundesstaaten und in der Europäischen Union’, in S. Marschall and C. Struenck (eds), Grenzenlose Macht? Politik und Politikwissenschaft im Umbruch, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 173–192.Google Scholar
Beyle, T.L.Dalton, R. (1983), ‘The governor and the state legislature’, in T.L. Beyle and L.R. Muchmore (eds), Being Governor, A View from the Office, Durham, NC: Duke Press Policy Studies, pp. 124–131.Google Scholar
Birchfield, V.Crepaz, M. (1998), ‘The impact of constitutional structures and collective and competitive veto points on income inequality in industrialised democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 34(2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, J., Mueller-Rommel, F.Malova, D. (2007), Governing New European Democracies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochsler, D. (2009), ‘Neighbours or friends? When Swiss cantonal governments cooperate with each other’, Regional and Federal Studies 19(3): 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolleyer, N. (2009), Intergovernmental Cooperation – Rational Choices in Federal Systems and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolleyer, N., Thorlakson, L. (2008), Beyond decentralization: measuring the interlocked state, MPSA (Midwest Political Science Association). 66th Annual Conference. Chicago, IL, USA, 3–6 April 2008.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.A. (2002), States and Regions in the European Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.A. (2005), ‘What can federalism teach us about the European Union? The German experience’, Regional and Federal Studies 15(2): 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, T.A. (2008), ‘EU Governance – Verhandlungen im Schatten von Hierarchie und Wettbewerb’, in I. Tömmel (ed.), Die Europäische Union: Governance und Policy-making, PVS Sonderheft 40, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 61–91.Google Scholar
Bowman, A.O.M. (2004), ‘Horizontal federalism: exploring interstate interaction’, Journal of Public Administration Research 14(4): 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D.R. (2001), ‘The Structures of intergovernmental relations’, International Science Journal 53(167): 121–127.Google Scholar
Carty, R.K., Erickson, L.Blake, D.E. (eds) (1992), Leaders and Parties in Canadian Politics: Experiences of the Provinces, Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Gray, V.Eisinger, P. (1991), American States and Cities, New York: HarperCollins Publisher Inc.Google Scholar
Haider, D.H. (1974), When Governments Go to Washington: Governors, Mayors and Intergovernmental Lobbying, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Héritier, A. (1998), ‘Political institutions, decision styles, and policy choices’, in R. Czada, A. Héritier and H. Keman (eds), Institutions and Political Choice, On the Limits of Rationality, Amsterdam: VU University Press, pp. 27–53.Google Scholar
Hodson, D.Maher, I. (2001), ‘The Open Method as a new mode of governance: the case of soft economic policy co-ordination’, Journal of Common Market Studies 39(4): 719–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L.Marks, G. (2003), ‘Unraveling the central state, but how?’, American Political Science Review 97(2): 233–243.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2004), ‘Multi-level governance and multi-level meta-governance’, in I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds), Multi-level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joumard, I.Kongsrud, P.M. (2003), ‘Fiscal relations across government levels’, OECD Economic Studies 36(1): 155–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A. (1997), ‘Types of democracy. From classical to new institutionalism’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R.S.Kolodny, R. (1994), ‘Party organizations as empty vessels: parties in American politics’, in R. S. Katz and P. Mair (eds), How Parties Organise: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies, London: Sage, pp. 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennett, S.A. (1998), The Courchene Proposal. Securing the Social Union: A Commentary on the Decentralized Approach, Kingston: Mc Gill Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Kincaid, J. (2008), Contemporary US federalism: coercive change with cooperative continuity. Retrieved 12 June 2009 from http://www10.gencat.cat/drep/binaris/reaf6_Kincaid_tcm112-75373.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lecours, A. (2004), ‘Moreno’s multiple ethnoterritorial concurrence model: a re-formulation’, Regional and Federal Studies 14(1): 66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven; London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mattila, M.Raunio, T. (2004), ‘Does winning pay? Electoral success and government formation in 15 West European countries, European Journal of Political Research 43: 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, D. (2001), Designing Europe. Comparative Lessons from the Federal Experience, Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meekison, P.J., Telford, H.Lazar, H. (2004), ‘The institutions of executive federalism, myths and realities’, in J.P. Meekison, H. Telford and H. Lazar (eds), Canada: The State of the Federation, 2002: Reconsidering the Institutions of Canadian Federalism, Kingston; Montreal: Mc Gill Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power From Rome to Maastricht, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Neidhart, L. (1970), Plebiszit und pluralitäre Demokratie. Eine Analyse der Funktion des schweizerischen Gesetzesreferendums, Bern: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Nicolaidis, K.Howse, R. (eds) (2001), The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, M. (2001), ‘Multi-level governance and the emergence of collaborative federal institutions in Australia’, Policy and Politics 29(2): 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poirier, J. (2001), The Functions of Intergovernmental Agreements: Post-devolution Concordats in Comparative Perspective, UCL (University College London), London: The Constitution Unit.Google Scholar
Pollack, M.A. (1994), ‘Creeping competence: the expanding agenda of the European Community’, Journal of Public Policy 14(2): 95–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, E.A. (2007), Originalism, Federalism and the American Constitutional Enterprise, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sbragia, A. (1993), ‘The European Community: a balancing act’, Publius: The Journal of Federalism 23(3): 23–38.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1988), ‘The joint-decision trap: lessons from German federalism and European integration’, Public Administration 66(3): 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1997), Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (2001), ‘European governance: common concerns vs. the challenge of diversity’, in C. Joerges, Y. Mény and J.H.H. Weiler (eds), Symposium: Responses to the European Commission’s White Paper on Governance, Florence: European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Thorlakson, L. (2006), ‘Building firewalls or floodgates? Constitutional design for the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(1): 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorlakson, L. (2009), ‘Patterns of party integration, influence and autonomy in seven federations’, Party Politics 15(2): 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatter, A. (2002), Kantonale Demokratien im Vergleich: Entstehungsgründe, Interaktionen und Wirkungen politischer Institutionen in den Schweizer Kantonen, Opladen: Leske+Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R.L. (1999), The Spending Power in Federal Systems: A Comparative Study, Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J.F. (1990), ‘Regulating intergovernmental relations in the 1990s’, in J. Kincaid (ed.), American Federalism: The Third Century, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp. 48–59.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J.F. (2002), Interstate Cooperation: Compacts and Administrative Agreements, Westport: Praeger Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, J.F. (2004), ‘Regulation of professions by interstate compact’, The CPA Journal. Retrieved 12 June 2009 from http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/504/infocus/p22.htmGoogle Scholar