Multilevel Governance in Europe However, the Multilevel Governance concept, which encompasses

Rainer Eising broad understandings of two universal elements in politics has also
gained currency in a great variety of other contexts.
A. Introduction
Zurn, Walti, and Enderlein state that Multilevel Governance
Multilevel Governance research has prompted “innovation in at least three main subfields
of Political Science: European Integration, Comparative
- Signifies a move away from classical International Relations (IR) Federalism, and International Relations.”
understandings of European integration
Renate Mayntz places the concept of Multilevel Governance
- Coined by Gary Marks in 1993 in his analysis of the European within a broader transition from focusing on individual actors and
Community’s structural funds policy. their ability to steer or direct policies (referred to as "steering
theory") to analyzing the structures and institutions that shape
- The concept first gained prominence within the multilayered EU governance on a global scale.
institutional context, as EU is often considered to be “the most
active and innovative producer of new types of decision-making Multilevel Governance is a move from “simple systems” to more
arrangements” worldwide “complex systems” that includes frameworks, theories, models to
understand the various puzzles and problems facing humans
- It is tied into the wider developments in the Social Sciences that interacting in contemporary societies.
drew attention to the increasing complexity of national and
international governance arrangements.

European Union characterized as a Multilevel System.

Outline of the Material B. The Concept of Multilevel Governance
This material not only discusses Multilevel Governance in Europe
but also its uses as it evolved in EU studies.
1. Elaborates the concept of Multilevel Governance - situating
it among competing perspectives on EU politics such as
Liberal Intergovernmentalism, Federalism, Poly-centric
Governance, Network Governance, etc. Multilevel Governance came from the empirical study of
2. Two types of multilevel governance structural policy-making
a. Multilevel Governance focused on monopolistic
general-purpose jurisdictions Gary Marks, Liesbet Hooghe, and Kermit Blank compared and
b. Efforts to conceptualize the politics of Multilevel contrasted Multilevel Governance to the Liberal-Intergovernmental
Governance understanding of EU politics which they labeled as “state-centric.”
3. Outlines basic models of multilevel decision-making
4. Linking Multilevel Governance to the variety of governance Marks, etc.,
modes in use in the EU
5. Relationship between Multilevel Governance concept and - The core claim of this earlier model was that “policy-making in the
its emphasis on the horizontal interactions among state and EU is determined primarily by state executives constrained by
private actors as a fundamental aspect of governance in political interests within autonomous state arenas that connect
comparison to the hierarchical understanding of subnational groups to European affairs.”
government
6. The conclusion evaluates the analytical usefulness of the - Took issue with the idea that member state executives control the
concept in EU studies and its impact to other fields European Integration process and act as gatekeepers between the
national arenas and the EU institutions, emphasizing instead the
multilayered nature of EU politics.
- Rejected a view of the world that reified (to make something Based on these 3 propositions, the study of political delegation,
abstract more concrete or real) the Westphalian state system and and historical institutionalism, Marks, etc., stressed the loss of both
separated the sphere of European/international politics from that individual and collective member state control of EU agenda-
of national politics. setting, decision-making, and policy implementation.

Multilevel Governance is now developed as a model based on EU decision-making was depicted as characterized by “multiple,
the assumption that the state as an aggregate concept must be intermeshing competences, complementary policy functions, and
disaggregated into different sets of actors variable lines of authority” among levels of government and
political institutions
3 Propositions of Marks, etc.,
The interaction of contending but interlocked institutions’ and
1. Decision-making competences are shared by actors at shifting policy agendas made more likely the direct communication
different levels rather than monopolized by state executives between the European Commission and sub-national actors,
- they stress the autonomous political role of EU-level interest groups, and national experts. This allowed these groups to
institutions such as the European Commission, the Court of bypass member states and challenge the traditional role of national
Justice, and the European Parliament governments as the only link between local and EU-level
2. Collective decision-making in the EU involves a significant governance.
loss or gains for individual member states
3. Political arenas are interconnected rather than nested, The initial research focused on how European integration was
including the variety of direct interactions between sub- changing the nature of statehood in Europe and leading to a loss
national and private actors and EU institutions, as well as of member state sovereignty. The concept of Multilevel
the formation of transnational associations at the EU level Governance aimed to challenge the clear separation between
by national groups international relations and national politics, as seen in liberal
intergovernmentalism, by emphasizing the many connections that
have formed between local actors and EU institutions. Additionally,
multilevel governance was partly a response to neofunctionalism, helped clarify the concept and linked EU Studies to broader trends
which expected the rise of a powerful European political center that in the Social Sciences. Just as Marks spoke about the EU,
would dominate national states, although Ernst Haas had already Rosenau made similar points about international politics.
abandoned this idea.
“Activity in the global community today is the result not only of
The concept quickly gained attention beyond EU Studies because nation-states striving for goals, but also of a number of varied
it filled research gaps in that field and also related to wider trends transnational collectivities – from multinational corporations to
in the Social Sciences. In EU Studies, the renewed focus on professional societies to international organizations to terrorists,
European integration in the 1980s and increased recognition of the and so on … – engaging in pursuits that are not confined by
European Court of Justice's role in legal integration showed that national boundaries…. Increasingly, it is clear that the breakdown
the EC/EU was becoming more important in setting key values in of the old inter-state system is necessitating reformulation of how
Western Europe. domestic and international processes sustain each other.”

Prominent commentators viewed the EU as a "new" type of Explanation: Today's global activity is driven not just by nation-
institution, noting significant changes in governance in Western states but also by various transnational groups, such as
Europe. However, there was a broad consensus that the EU is not multinational corporations, professional societies, international
a state because it doesn't have the exclusive power to use force or organizations, and even terrorist groups. This highlights a shift
collect taxes. It also isn't simply an international organization or away from the traditional inter-state system, indicating that
confederation, since its rules override national laws and cover domestic and international processes are increasingly
many different policy areas. interconnected and need to be redefined to reflect this changing
landscape.
The variety of terms used to describe the EU in EU Studies showed
that there was a lot of disagreement about what the EU really is. In Although Marks, etc., did not clearly define "governance" in the
this context of uncertainty, describing the EU as a Multilevel context of Multilevel Governance, they focused on the emergence
Governance system did more than just create another label; it of layered interactions and the complex sharing of responsibilities
across different levels. Their analysis is linked to the "governance governance studies exclude. Drawing on empirical economics
turn" in Policy Studies and Comparative Politics (CP). As such, research on the optimal allocation of jurisdictions in Competitive
Multilevel Governance became part of a shared research agenda Federalism, the authors sought to conceptualize ‘logically coherent
in International Relations and Comparative Politics. types that capture alternative jurisdictional arrangements.’

In Comparative Politics, the concept of governance responds to Although competences and resources are distributed and shared
the increasing division within society and state due to socio- across territorial units in both types, these two systems represent
economic changes and institutional development. The growing different ways of organizing political authority.
complexity of actors led to extensive literature on policy networks,
sub-governments, and negotiation systems, which are seen as Type I Governance
weakening the state's authority.
- Features a broad structure based on federalism, which organizes
Despite their different focuses, both IR and CP emphasize the lack how political power is shared
of a central authority and the rise of new governing processes. In
this context, the multilevel governance concept highlights the direct - Its institutions are durable and sticky.
interactions between EU political authorities and sub-national
entities, as well as the political mobilization of these entities, - Political authority is distributed across different levels of
indicating that decision-making is shifting away from member government, from local to global.
states toward supranational institutions and local governments.
- Each jurisdiction is responsible for a wide range of tasks, and
Subsequent work on the Multilevel Governance concept was more there is only one relevant jurisdiction at each level
overtly connected to the general Social Science debate on
governance and the study of Federalism: Marks, etc., compared - Membership tends to be territorial, meaning the boundaries of
and contrasted these two ideal types of governance, maintaining these jurisdictions do not intersect
their emphasis on the territorial dimension that many other
- Marks, etc., describes it as, ‘every citizen is located in a Russian
Doll set of nested jurisdictions’. - Since Type II Governance is established to address specific
policy problems, membership depends on practical considerations,
Democratic Type I Jurisdictions leading to exit strategies rather than voice strategies where
members express dissatisfaction.
- Usually consists of an elected legislature, an executive, and a
court system. Frey and Eienberger labeled Type II governance units as
‘F,O,CJ.’ Functional, Overlapping, and Competing Jurisdictions
- These general-purpose jurisdictions tend to foster common and view them as operating within a system of competitive,
identities and strategies for their members, creating stable and functional Federalism.
comprehensive governance arrangements with clearly defined
boundaries. Examples:
- Numerous Swiss Zweckverbände
Type II Governance - US special districts
- (in IR) International regimes and treaties
- Consists of a set of special-purpose jurisdictions that carry out
specific tasks, such as regulating telecommunications or setting Marks, etc., state that Type I Governance is the main form of
toy safety standards. government while Type II Governance is often part of Type I
Governances.
- There can be a vast number of these jurisdictions, and they can
operate at various territorial scales across many levels. Type II's flexible nature can help take advantage of economies of
scale (the cost advantages that organizations or systems can
- They are more flexible than Type I Governance arrangements, achieve by increasing their level of production) and address local
lasting only as long as there is demand for their services and as preferences for public goods. However, having too many Type II
long as they can compete with alternative providers. arrangements can lead to high coordination costs between
jurisdictions. While combining general-purpose and special- Commission (EC), the European Parliament (EP), and the
purpose jurisdictions aims to balance centralization and European Court of Justice (ECJ). Member states have strong
decentralization costs, there are no clear rules for defining the rights to participate in decision-making, especially through their
boundaries between these jurisdictions or how to resolve conflicts representation in the Council of the EU and the European Council,
between them. Principles meant to guide the distribution of as well as their voting rights regarding the College of
responsibilities, like subsidiarity or proportionality, often don’t Commissioners and the judges of the European Court of Justice.
provide clear guidelines for allocation. Despite this, supporters of
competitive Federalism and Type II arrangements believe that the The EU Council shares executive responsibilities with the
coordination costs are minimized because these systems are Commission and legislative tasks with the European Parliament.
designed to reduce conflicts between jurisdictions. Generally, a qualified majority of member states must agree on
legislative decisions at the EU level. Compared to most national
In the more comprehensive Type I Governance (within which Type federal systems, EU multilevel governance is dynamic and has
II arrangements are embedded), Multilevel Governance has a evolved continuously. After 60 years of integration, it now spans a
statist and institutional core. Public actors from at least two levels wide range of policy areas, primarily using regulatory measures to
of government share political authority in formal institutional manage the common market. In many areas, member states can
arrangements. Public actors at the upper level are to some extent no longer make independent decisions, creating a strong need for
autonomous, but lower level units ‘are not subordinate.’ cooperation and coordination between EU institutions and national
governments.
The EU is usually considered to be a general-purpose
jurisdiction, not just a special-purpose jurisdiction. The EU also includes key aspects of Type II Governance.
Generally, the EU’s authority differs greatly across and within
Despite not being a state, the EU has a wider range of powers than policy areas and throughout the policy-making process. While the
international organizations and governs within its 27 member EU has strong policy-making abilities, it relies heavily on its
states. It has established several institutions with independent member states for implementation. Some member states have
authority at the supranational level, including the European chosen to opt out of specific EU policies. For instance, a group of
countries in the Eurozone uses a common currency and shares focus on vertical interactions between levels of government, while
institutions like the European Central Bank, while others keep their Type II arrangements require examining horizontal interactions
own currencies and monetary policies. Similarly, the Schengen among different jurisdictions. This typology is flexible enough to
system allows 21 EU member states, along with Switzerland, study national federal systems, global governance, European
Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, to remove border controls governance, and sub-national entities along with their territorial
among themselves, but the UK and Ireland have opted out. and functional structures, though national federal systems are less
common.
The Amsterdam Treaty aimed to make the EU more effective
amid its expansion and changing political landscape. It introduced Watts identifies 25 functioning federations, but they aren't the main
provisions to ensure cooperation among member states, though focus in multilevel governance literature. The concept of Multilevel
these have rarely been used. These provisions come into play Governance addresses the growing internationalization of political
when member states cannot reach unanimous agreement on powers and the complex mix of national and international
legislation. They were first used in 2010 for a regulation on divorce jurisdictions. It serves as a response to the limitations of single-
and legal separation, and again in 2012 to create a unitary patent level political models in International Relations (IR) and
protection system. In February 2013, the Commission proposed a Comparative Politics (CP). Over time, the focus has shifted from
financial transactions tax to reduce speculative trading, which was power struggles between institutional actors in the EU to a
supported by 11 countries. Overall, while European governance is functional view of governance structures. Multilevel Governance
mainly Type I, it also includes important elements of Type II allows jurisdictions to be tailored to address external factors,
governance. economies of scale, specific needs, and preferences, making it a
solution for functional problem-solving.
Originally used to study territorial political dynamics in the
European Union, the Multilevel Governance concept has been The typology of general-purpose and functional jurisdictions
broadened to analyze how different political entities are structured. highlights the structure of public institutions and actors involved in
It primarily looks at territorial levels but also includes functional governance, which is central to the Multilevel Governance concept.
jurisdictions that operate at various scales. Type I arrangements This focus sets it apart from similar concepts and gives it a unique
role in studying modern governance. Unlike "polycentric governance but, in contrast, to standard theories, lacks a causal
governance," which looks at multiple independent decision-making motor of integration or a set of testable hypotheses.’
centers functioning in the same area, Multilevel Governance
emphasizes the territorial aspect of governance. It also differs from This section discusses some efforts to theorize Multilevel
"network governance," which focuses on private actors and their Governance, focusing on German contributions.
interactions with public actors.
Fritz W. Scharpf
Additionally, it contrasts with "new modes of governance," which
examine the shift away from traditional parliamentary and - Was one of the first scholars to develop theoretical propositions
executive power structures towards non-hierarchical approaches regarding why and how Multilevel Governance works and under
like self-regulation and private dispute resolution. While Multilevel what conditions it fails.
Governance can encompass studies of political mobilization, policy
making, and state restructuring, as suggested by Simona Piattoni, - Identified a structural resemblance to the EU multilevel system -
its specific focus distinguishes it from other theories and concepts among other things, with comparisons to the representation of
in governance studies. Länder governments in the German Federal Council and its high
decision-making hurdles
C. Theorizing Multilevel Governance in the EU
- Has analyzed the ‘institutional capacity and the institutional
Marks, etc., typology focuses on governance structures, outlining legitimacy’ of the EU multilevel system in several subsequent
the structural characteristics of Multilevel Governance, but devotes contributions.
less attention to the dominant interaction mechanisms and
governance patterns within multilevel systems. The authors’ work Starting with his important work on intergovernmental negotiations
has been criticized on the grounds that ‘it provides a “thick” though and the joint-decision trap (JDT) in EU agricultural policy, Scharpf
compelling, description of contemporary changes in European highlights the role of national governments in the EU multilevel
system. He argues that the EU often produces less-than-ideal - Mutual Adjustment
policy results. - Intergovernmental Negotiations
- Hierarchical Direction
A key aspect of his JDT model is that powers are shared between - Joint Decision Making
EU institutions and member states, meaning that member states
cannot change the status quo on their own. They must engage in A. Mutual Adjustment occurs when national governments make
a “compulsory negotiation system” to address their issues. their own policy choices while considering the policies of other
Additionally, member states' self-interests are directly represented governments, leading to policies and international order
in negotiations in the EU Council, which means these interests are developing through a series of moves and responses without direct
presented without much filtering. communication.

Third, decisions in the EU Council usually require unanimous or B. Intergovernmental Negotiations happen when governments
near-unanimous agreement. Scharpf believes this setup prevents need to coordinate their policies to manage cross-border effects,
member states from acting independently and hinders policy but still want to keep veto rights and exclude others from decision-
innovation at the EU level. It also makes institutional change making.
difficult because it would lead to significant conflicts over
distribution that could hurt the self-interests of many member C. Hierarchical Direction involves centralizing authority under
states. While complete policy blockages are uncommon, the JDT supranational institutions, like the European Court of Justice and
is expected to consistently result in suboptimal policy outcomes. the European Commission, without further input from member
states.
Connecting these initial ideas on EU decision-making with his
analysis of governance modes in policy-making, Scharpf came to D. Joint Decision Making means that decision-making powers
analyze the ‘vertical interactions’ of EU member state are shared between supranational institutions and national
governments in terms of four major interaction modes: governments.
Scharpf argues that the EU primarily uses a specific combination Scharpf notes that this problem arises particularly in areas where
of governance modes: national functions are vulnerable to competition, worsening
existing issues. However, the joint decision-making mode is vital
Mutual Adjustment is the default approach, but member states because it can create effective European solutions and binding
also engage in Intergovernmental Negotiations to manage rules, offering more democratic self-determination than other
cross-border effects while maintaining control over decision- modes.
making.

This mode (Mutual Adjustment) was significant during the Scharpf’s analysis outlines the main interaction patterns in the
integration crisis after the Empty Chair Crisis and remains EU’s multilevel system and identifies key issues related to joint
important in EU foreign and security policy today. Hierarchical decision-making, such as suboptimal policies, rare non-decisions,
Direction plays a key role in market-making, where member states and the difficulty of reversing past decisions. This process makes
delegate decision-making powers to EU institutions like the major policy innovations and institutional reforms unlikely since
European Central Bank, European Court of Justice, and European such changes would require redistributing powers and resources
Commission. This allows these institutions to promote European among member states.
integration and remove barriers to free movement and competition.
Subsequent studies have challenged Scharpf's view on decision-
In contrast, when positive integration measures are needed, making problems in EU governance, highlighting mechanisms that
member states must collaborate to pass EU legislation. This can help build consensus and facilitate policy agreement. These
be challenging when national interests conflict, making joint mechanisms include choosing treaty bases that require less than
decision-making harder than negative integration, which is better unanimous approval, involving different actors like experts and
supported by EU law. As a result, the EU's multilevel system faces bureaucrats to reduce political tension, and using strategic
governance imbalances: the policies agreed upon can hinder information to influence national governments. Other strategies
national governments from implementing necessary corrections. involve redefining issues, making side deals, and fostering
cooperation over time.
 - He emphasizes that the connections between institutions and
Although these mechanisms are recognized in EU decision- processes at different levels (within a government and between
making studies, linking them to the challenges of Multilevel governments) affect the strategies these actors use in multilevel
Governance enriches the theoretical understanding of the JDT systems.
model. Scharpf suggests that the model should account for the
influence of the European Court of Justice and the strategic role of In this respect, Benz differentiates between Loosely Coupled
the European Commission in shaping policies. Multilevel Systems and Tightly Coupled Systems:

Overall, the evolution of governance modes in the EU is seen as a 1. Tightly Coupled Systems (such as German Federalism) -
result of interactions between supranational institutions and usually have less ability to implement reforms
member states. Scharpf’s joint-decision trap explains the 2. Loosely Coupled Systems (such as the European Union)
stagnation of European integration from the Empty Chair Crisis - enable more effective governance because they give veto
until the late 1970s. However, it was developed during a time of players more flexibility to handle conflicting demands at
significant institutional changes in the EU, which shifted many different levels
decisions from unanimity to qualified majority voting, thus
challenging some of his arguments. Despite this, Scharpf’s Benz builds on Putnam’s idea of two-level games in
coherent theory connects multilevel structures to decision-making international politics, suggesting that national governments must
practices and outcomes, showing that actors adapt their strategies consider the views of their parliaments, parties, and voters while
to the conditions of multilevel governance. also accounting for the interests of other member states during EU
Council negotiations. Policy solutions acceptable at the EU level
Arthur Benz might lack domestic support, and vice versa. Similarly,
representatives in EU associations may face pushback from their
- Created a theory about the EU’s Multilevel Governance system own groups despite agreeing on positions at the EU level. The
that focuses on how actors try to avoid policy deadlocks. main point is that multilevel systems often encounter these
dilemmas, prompting actors to seek ways to resolve them when In parliamentary or semi-presidential democracies, member states
tackling policy issues. often do not use their veto rights against national governments.
Instead, they give governments flexibility in negotiations or focus
Benz discusses several factors that enable the Loose Coupling on reviewing their actions afterward, holding the responsible
of the EU and national arenas: minister accountable.

1. First, the European Commission has agenda-setting rights Scharpf and Benz make significant theoretical contributions to
and relies on policy experts, which helps separate the understanding multilevel politics in the EU. Rather than creating
search for new policy solutions from member state comprehensive theories of EU Multilevel Governance, they use
negotiations. established frameworks (like Neoinstitutionalism and rational
2. Second, the Council presidency plays a mediating role in choice) and incorporate concepts such as hierarchy, joint decision-
EU Council discussions. making, and the coupling of levels. They connect these ideas to
3. Third, the EU Council has various structures, from expert the institutional setup of multilevel systems, identifying specific
groups to the Committee of Permanent Representatives coordination challenges in decision-making and ways to address
(COREPER) and ministers, which allows for flexibility in them, while highlighting the interactions between institutional
finding policy solutions. structures, strategies, and policy outcomes.
4. Fourth, there is collaboration between the EU Council and
the European Parliament during legislation, especially in D. Varieties of EU Governance
trilogues with the Commission.
5. Finally, there is the decoupling of EU politics from the Further research on Multilevel Governance in the EU shows a
vagaries of national party politics and party competition. range of governance modes currently at play. These studies differ
Strategies used in multilevel interactions include linking in how they define these modes and the actors involved.
issues, making side payments, increasing budgets, and
shifting levels and arenas For example, while Scharpf focuses on the interactions between
national governments and supranational EU institutions, other
studies look at various governance structures that include both However, many authors agree that hierarchy, when defined more
public and private actors. narrowly as unilateral direction, applies not only to the EU's
market-making policies but also to a wider range of EU policy
Researchers have noted that governance modes vary not only areas.
between market-making and market-correcting policies but also
across different policy areas. It’s been observed that the number Gerda Falkner
and mix of governance modes have increased over time in the EU,
though some modes still dominate in specific areas, such as - Argues that the clarity of a policy's specifications in EU primary
voluntary cooperation in education and the Bologna process. law is essential for understanding hierarchical decisions made by
Overall, the dominant mix of governance modes in the EU remains the Commission or Court. While this often aligns with market-
unclear. making, it isn't exclusive to it.

Three Governance Modes: Additionally, policy implementation in the EU multilevel system

1. Hierarchy relies heavily on hierarchical governance tools like directives,
2. Competition regulations, and decisions. From 1975 to 2012, the EU used
3. Networks regulations less frequently than in the mid-1980s and early 1990s
but has maintained a consistent output of directives, with an
Hierarchy increase in decisions starting in the mid-1990s. (see Figure 9.1)

Tanja Börzel Héritier and Rhodes

- Suggests that EU governance modes typically function under the - Note that the "shadow of hierarchy" significantly influences new
influence of hierarchy, which she defines broadly to include even governance modes. The credible threat of legislation often drives
majority voting in the EU Council's joint decision-making. the development of these alternatives to traditional decision-
making and helps ensure their effectiveness. However, they ineffective. As a result, two alternative mechanisms were
caution that there are important considerations to keep in mind. introduced:

Ingeborg Tömmel 1. Mutual Recognition - This was established by the Single

Market program in the mid-1980s, requiring member states
- Argues that while hierarchy is important in the EU, it is less to accept each other's regulatory standards as equivalent.
frequently used and its influence is weakened compared to This approach reduces the costs of negotiating new
national states. This is due to the EU's multilevel and multi-actor regulations and can lead to regulatory competition,
structure, which requires establishing common rules while potentially raising or lowering standards. To prevent a "race
accommodating member state diversity. As a result, the to the bottom," mutual recognition is supported by a system
implementation of EU directives allows member states some of minimum harmonization, allowing exceptions for specific
discretion, and competition policy decisions often result from domestic requirements.
compromises rather than strict top-down rules.
2. Open Method of Coordination (OMC) - This method
Competition fosters policy competition by encouraging mutual learning
and benchmarking among member states, helping them
Competition is more significant in the EU than in its member states. improve their policy performance. It connects non-binding
It is the main tool for governing the common market and promoting European guidelines with national action plans without
competitive relationships between economic actors, as well as requiring member states to give up formal competences to
fostering policy competition and convergence among member the EU. The Commission prefers this approach due to
states. expected resistance to joint decision-making and the lack of
hierarchical tools.
Before the mid-1970s, the EU relied on hierarchical standard-
setting to harmonize the common market, but this proved
In summary, the EU uses competition not just for market regulation 2,034 in the German Bundestag. These organizations participate
but also to encourage policy improvements among member states in consultations, informal meetings, and expert committees, and
through mechanisms that involve various public and private actors. some have rights to influence EU policy formulation and
implementation.
Network
Depending on their influence and representation, these
Early studies of European governance highlight the importance of organizations can build support for policies among their members
network governance in the EU, which focuses on bringing together and contribute to governance when the EU grants them self-
relevant state and societal actors to build issue-specific groups. In regulation powers or co-regulatory roles. While the trust and
this approach, state actors collaborate with various interest density of these networks may be lower than in national politics,
organizations, institutions, and experts to negotiate the allocation they can stabilize interactions and help solve EU policy issues.
of specific values. However, policy networks can also hinder changes.

With 27 member states, the EU faces a diverse range of political, Overall, while network governance may not be the main mode of
social, and economic interests. Network governance emphasizes EU governance, it plays a significant role in preparing joint
the role of specialized councils, the Commission's directorates, decisions and implementing policies, potentially enhancing
regulatory agencies, and advisory committees, which create sub- democratic control by involving stakeholders and increasing
structures that develop their own operating procedures. The actors legitimacy.
are both autonomous and interdependent, meaning the
Commission proposes legislation, while the Council and E. Private Actors and Multilevel Governance
Parliament make joint decisions after engaging in discussions with
many private or regional actors. Many studies highlight that Multilevel Governance in the EU
involves multiple actors, including private ones, which play a key
As of August 2013, the EU's transparency register listed 5,872 role. This shift from a hierarchical to a more horizontal relationship
interest organizations aiming to influence EU policies, compared to among state and private actors is seen as a key feature of
governance. The concept of network governance captures this tied to their members and the local contexts they come from, which
change, emphasizing the involvement of private actors in EU shapes their political activities and access to institutions.
politics.
In the EU's multilevel system, many EU-level interest organizations
A key question is how interest organizations adapt to the are federations of national groups, allowing them to share costs.
opportunities and challenges of multilevel political systems. This Generally, national associations focus on domestic institutions,
adjustment can include changing their structure, strategies, while EU associations target EU institutions. However, national
forming new alliances, or altering their policy focus. An groups might engage directly with EU institutions when EU
organization’s connections within institutional contexts can help or regulations significantly affect them or when their representation
hinder this adaptation, and some groups are better positioned to by federations is inadequate.
leverage multilevel politics than others.
Interest organizations need strong governance capabilities to
Multilevel systems significantly affect interest groups. In Type I represent their interests at multiple levels, which includes
Governance, power is distributed between higher levels and their understanding state actors' needs and mediating between those
components, which is relevant to the EU. This arrangement offers demands and their own members. The type of organization
interest groups multiple ways to engage and “venue shop,” matters: specific interest organizations, which have clear and
meaning they can lobby at various governmental levels rather than focused constituencies, are often more involved in EU policy
being limited to one jurisdiction. making than diffuse interest groups, which represent broader
societal interests.
David Coen
The governance capacities of interest groups also depend on how
- Argues that it’s wise for interest organizations to use various they are incorporated into public policy.
political channels to influence EU policy. However, representing
interests at different levels can be costly. Organizations are often There are two main types of interest group systems:
 1. Pluralism - Many organizations compete for influence
without formal self-regulation. 3. Political Authority Dispersion - The distribution of political
power in multilevel systems creates a more diverse
2. Corporatism - A limited number of representative associational landscape than the centralization found in
organizations compete but are allowed to shape public unitary systems.
policies and expected to moderate their demands.
Thus, in Type I multilevel systems, the spread of political authority
Overall, organizations in corporatist systems tend to have greater is expected to result in greater interest-group pluralism. Data from
governance capacities than those in pluralist systems. 36 democracies show a negative relationship between federalism
and interest-group pluralism, indicating that highly centralized
What type of interest-group system and governance countries can still have varied interest-group systems, influenced
capacities can we expect in multilevel systems? by how these groups engage in public policymaking.

Research indicates that multilevel systems are generally When focusing only on countries with some level of authority
better at fostering interest groups than unitary systems for dispersion, the pattern shifts: the more political authority is shared
three main reasons: across government layers, the more pluralistic the interest
representation tends to be. However, Germany and Austria are
1. Regional Disparities - Multilevel systems allow more exceptions due to their cooperative federalism, which limits
variation in interest-group organization across regions flexibility in policy decisions and may lead to greater centralization
compared to unitary states. of interest groups.

2. Cultural and Economic Diversity - There are more In summary, a tightly coupled multilevel system, where higher
significant cultural, social, and economic differences in levels hold policy-making power and lower levels handle
multilevel systems, leading to a wider variety of interest implementation, can encourage centralization of interest groups.
organizations. Additionally, factors like control of financial resources, access to
central institutions, balance among interest groups, policy
importance, and homogeneity of interests in specific areas are also
crucial for the emergence of corporatist interest groups.
F. Conclusions

Multilevel Governance is a response to the growing

internationalization of politics and the complex interactions
between different jurisdictions. It emphasizes the range of public
institutions and actors involved in governance, distinguishing it
from similar concepts and making it significant in contemporary
governance studies.

However, Multilevel Governance is not a specific mode of

governance; instead, it encompasses various governance
modes—like hierarchy, networks, competition, and negotiations—
present in the EU system. Theories of multilevel governance build
on established frameworks and integrate mechanisms that
highlight the logic and structure of these settings.

These theories are broader than theories focused solely on

European integration and concentrate on how institutional
structures, interaction strategies, and policy outcomes interact.
Ultimately, Multilevel Governance encourages interest-group
pluralism and benefits groups with strong governance capabilities.