The role of local actors and institutions in multilevel governance

THE ROLE OF LOCAL ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS IN MULTILEVEL

GOVERNANCE

Chiara Carrozza [email protected]

PhD Seminar, 28th March 2014, FEUC

Topics

I.  Governance: meanings, theories and history II.  Multilevel Governance (exercise) III.  Case: Climate Change adaptation between local

and global

Governance: meanings, theories and history

  Policy-Network Theory   Rational-Choice Theory   Interpretive Theory   Organization Theory   Institutional Theory   Systems Theory   Policy Instruments   Development Theory

(Bevir 2011, see references of the seminar)



  Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma highlights phenomena that are:   hybrid  multijurisdictional  with plural stakeholders who come together in networks.

(Bevir 2011, see references of the seminar)

SFB-Governance Working Paper Series • No. 23 • March 2010 | 9

their coercive powers, i.e. do not rely on statehood. Some authors, therefore, distinguish be-tween governance by, with and without government (cf. Zürn 2002). The paper follows this dis-tinction by using “governance with/out government”. In order to avoid conceptual overstretch,

9 Governance with/out government does not cover lobbying and mere advocacy activities of non-governmental actors

2005).

Non-governmental actors who are not active participants in negotiating or competition systems pose few challenges to existing concepts and theories in political science and international rela-

• are based on self-coordination and do not aim at the provision of common goods and services (markets);

• produce common goods and services as unintended consequences (for example rating

Figure 1: Governance with/out government – the non-hierarchical involvement of non-governmental actors

9 The typology can also be read as a description of the transformation of the state driven by privatiza-tion, deregulation and delegation of governance functions turning the state from an organizational form of governance (Herrschaftsverband), in which government is the sole provider of common goods (governance by government), to a situation in which government primarily manages the provision by non-governmental actors (governance with government); cf. Genschel/Zangl (2008). Even the leanest state, however, entails some involvement of government. Governance without any government in form of private self-regulation is already conceptually rare.

Lobbying of public actors by private actors

Delegation to private actorsparticipation of public actors(for example contracting-out; standard-setting)

Private self-regulation in the shadow of hierarchyinvolvement of public actors(for example voluntary agreements)

Co-Regulation/Co-production of public and private actorsJoint decision-making of public and private actors,(for example social partners in tripartite concertation;public-private partnerships)

Consultation/Cooptation of private actorsparticipation of private actors in public decision-making(for example private actors as members of statedelegation; outsourcing)

Public adoption of private regulationoutput control by public actors(for example erga omnesto collective agreements of social partners)

Private self-regulationno public involvement(for example private regimes;social partner autonomy)

Public regulationno involvement of private actors

governance by government

governance with government

governance without government


legitimacy

network management accountability

capacity building

social inclusion

participation

effectiveness

Börzel, Tanja A. 2010: Governance with/out Government. False Promises or Flawed Premises? SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, No. 23, Research Center (SFB) 700, Berlin, March 2010


(Mayntz 2003, see references of the seminar)

European integration

Globalization

Multilevel governance


  Defined by Marks (1993) as ‘system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers’.

Marks, G. (1993) ‘Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC’. In Cafruny, A. and Rosenthal, G. (eds) The State of the European Community (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).

Multilevel Governance interdependence of actors operating at different territorial levels – local, regional, national, supranational.

the growing importance of non- hierarchical forms of policy-making such as dynamic networks which involve public authorities as well as private actors

interconnected


Example: Fishery policy a)  Read the case b)  Sketch the process

described in the case (actors; relations among them; instruments) and take notes of the conflicts

c)  Choose one person to presents the results

d)  Time 20 min.

Tom R. Burns & Christian Stöhr (2011), Power, knowledge, and conflict in the shaping of commons governance. The case of EU Baltic fisheries; International Journal of the Commons, vol. 5, no 2. http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/URN%3ANBN%3ANL%3AUI%3A10-1-101632


26/03/14 16.25Burns

Pagina 4 di 12http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/rt/printerFriendly/260/217

conditions that change over time. The most important knowledge source for EU fisheries policy is arguablythe International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), an umbrella organization for the nationalresearch institutes, where the data collected on status and prognosis of fish stocks are organized andinterpreted. Based on the data obtained and the application of the precautionary principle, [13] ICESprovides recommendations for policy measures of which the annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is the mostimportant (Commission 2007; Karagiannakos 1996). In addition, the Commission established the Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in 1993 and renewed it in 2005. The Committeeconsists of scientists that provide advice on the current status of fisheries resources, their development andany consequent economic implications.

The second source of information comes from stakeholders that, especially in the recent years, have gainedgreater opportunities to provide advice to the European Commission. One stakeholder-based advisory groupis the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) that consists of members of the fishingindustry and since 2000 also of scientists and NGOs. The Commission typically asks the Committee for adviceconcerning certain issues related to the CFP, but ACFA can also issue its own opinions. In addition, aftercontinuous pressure from the fishing industry and with the general shift of the EU governance paradigmtowards greater inclusiveness with increased stakeholder involvement, the Council decided in the CFP reform2002 to set up Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) that consist of representatives of the fishing sector and socalled “other interest” groups that among others include environmental Non-Government Organizations(ENGOs). Similarly to ACFA, the RACs provide – preferably consensus based – advice to the Commission onbehalf of their region, but do not have any formal regulatory power.

3.2.3. Other affected actors, stakeholdersAt the grassroots level, two main groups of stakeholders have an interest in fisheries governance – thefishing industry (e.g. fishers, ship owners, processing industry) and ENGOs. The fishing industry tries torealize economic gains from fishing. The scope and size of fisheries are highly diverse; different national legaland norm systems apply in the fishing communities; and responsible authorities and configurations of actorsvary among the countries (see later).

ENGOs promote nature conservation and obtain their influence mainly through private campaigns to mobilizepublic opinion, consumer behaviour, and even electoral results. The power and size of ENGOs vary amongcountries as well. In Sweden for example, ENGOs were able to block the entire Baltic cod market afterpractices of unsustainable harvesting were disclosed. In Poland, on the other hand, ENGOs still play amarginal role in Baltic Sea policy-making processes.

Figure 1 summarizes the governance system described above. Although it can be classified as a hierarchicalparadigm it consists of multiple levels (EU, regional, national, local) and a large number of different actorswith a wide spectrum of interests, diverse powers, and different organizational arrangements.

Figure 1The EU fisheries governance process.

3.3. The architecture of Baltic Sea fisheries governanceUsing the analytic scheme presented in the first part of this paper, the different elements comprising thearchitecture of the Baltic fisheries governance system can be specified (Table 3). Such an approach allows,as we suggest later, comparisons with other governance cases but also enables one to analyze and identifyshifts in the current governance systems leading to institutional change (Carson et al. 2009).

Table 3Governance paradigm for Baltic Sea fisheries

Climate Change adaptation between local and global

  Local actors are:   Local public institutions  Civil society institutions   Private institutions

  They shape the livelihoods impacts of climate hazards through a range of indispensable functions they perform:   information gathering and dissemination,   resource mobilization and allocation,   skills development and capacity building,   providing leadership, and   networking with other decision makers and institutions.


  Local institutions shape the effects of climate hazards in three important ways:   shape the impact of climate change on communities;   shape the way communities respond to climate change;  are the intermediaries for external support to

adaptation



“nothing significant happens in science without concurrent adjustments in society, politics and culture; similarly intransigent social problems seldom yield to resolution without changes in existing structure of knowledge” (Jasanoff 2004, p. 21).

Jasanoff, S. (2004) (Ed), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, New York: Routledge.

The role of local actors and institutions in multilevel governance

Documents

Transcript of The role of local actors and institutions in multilevel governance