The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multi-Level Governance: Underplayed Features, Overblown Expectation and Missing Linkages
Abstract
Purpose: This chapter attempts to answer some of the questions raised in this volume, in particular: (1) provide a concise but precise definition of multi-level governance; (2) prove that it is a theoretical and not just a descriptive concept and (3) dispel some of the misconceptions associated with it, for example, that (a) multi-level governance underplays and conceals the exercise of power or (b) it is incompatible with democracy. Methodology/approach: The chapter is correspondingly organized in four sections, preceded and followed by short introductory and concluding sections. The four sections address, respectively: (1) the definition of multi-level governance (MLG) (‘Solving the dependent variable problem’); (2) the causes that explain the emergence and diffusion of MLG arrangements (‘The contextual causes of MLG’); (3) the changes that it triggers in the manner in which power is deployed (‘The institutional consequences of MLG’); (4) the democratic implications of the diffusion of MLG arrangements (‘Are MLG arrangements democratic?’). The methodology employed is mainly that of ‘conceptual analysis’ (Sartori, 1984), which implies that the connotational features (those features which minimally allow us to identify cases of MLG) of the concept are identified so that we can delimit the denotational extension of the concept (the universe of phenomena which can be identified as cases of MLG). This chapter contains a highly abridged version of this conceptual analysis, which is fully developed in Piattoni (2010a). Findings: MLG denotes a growing class of policymaking arrangements characterized by the simultaneous activation of governmental and non-governmental actors at various jurisdictional levels. These arrangements have identifiable contextual causes, even if the precise contours of MLG arrangements depend on the capacity of the actors to mobilize arguments and people on behalf of their specific ideas, values and interest. The precise shape that these arrangements will take, therefore, depends on the mobilization capacity of the actors (and on the capacity of other actors to contain or delimit such mobilization). The causes of mobilization are mainly contextual, having to do with the increased complexity and overload of state activities and with the growing request for direct involvement on the part of civil society organizations. Both these trends induce states to seek joint solutions to common problems, hence MLG dynamics occur on three axes: a centre-periphery axis, a state-society axis, and a national-international axis which challenge, respectively, the centrality, the distinctiveness and the sovereignty of the state. Research/practical implications: This conceptualization of MLG allows us to analyse the extent to which different policymaking arrangements respond to MLG logics and to understand which actors and which levels are mostly responsible for the particular configuration that obtains. This conceptualization of MLG, although here deployed in a purely discursive manner, could enable us to ‘measure’ the degree of institutional and political empowerment of subjects, other than central state actors, in various policy realms. Social implications: The most important social implication is the impact that MLG arrangements have on how democratic decision-making occurs, on what we mean by democracy, and on the societal perception of how contemporary democracies work. The chapter argues that trying to apply to MLG arrangements democratic criteria and standards that were developed for the unitary, distinctive and sovereign state is misleading and that we must rather develop an updated notion of democracy appropriate for the interconnected, multi-level context in which we live. The concept of ‘transnational democracy’ is cursorily offered as a promising direction for further reflection. Originality/value: The chapter is wholly based on the long-term work and reflection of the author on MLG and on the scholarly contributions of the other authors of the volume.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Second, the prevailing policy aims may differ across governance levels, leading to verti -cal inconsistencies in policy aims across trans-national, national and local levels [36].”
From The Importance of Being Consistent: Circularity Policy Aims in the European Wastewater Sector (2025) · cites this paper as [36]
Citations
Cites
Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics
Sartori, G. (1970) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1958356 · Cited by 3,318
Saward, M. (2006) · Contemporary Political Theory · doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300234 · Cited by 1,471
Research works printed but not linked: 73
- Agné, 2007, The myth of international delegation: Limits to and suggestions for democratic theory in the context of the European Union., Government and Opposition, 42, 18, 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00211.x · DOI
- Ansell, 2000, The networked polity: Regional development in Western Europe., Governance, 13, 303
- Baker, 2015, Multi-level governance: The missing linkages
- Benz, 2007, Accountable multilevel governance by the open method of coordination?, European Law Journal, 13, 505, 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00381.x · DOI
- Berger, 1981, Organizing interests in Western Europe
- Bohman, 2007, Democracy across borders. From Dêmos to Dêmoi, 10.7551/mitpress/2327.001.0001 · DOI
- Börzel, 2003, The politics of Europeanization, 57, 10.1093/0199252092.003.0003 · DOI
- Bovens, 2010, The real world of EU accountability. What deficit?
- Bukowski, 2003, Between Europeanization and local societies. The space for territorial governance
- Christiansen, 2007, The role of committees in the policy-process of the European Union. Legislation, implementation and deliberation, 10.4337/9781847205322 · DOI
- Crozier, 1975, The crisis of democracy. Report on the governability of democracies to the trilateral Commission
- Curtin, 2007, Holding (Quasi-)autonomous EU administrative actors to public account, European Law Journal, 13, 523, 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00382.x · DOI
- Egeberg, 2011, EU-level agencies: New executive centre formation or vehicles for national control?, Journal of European Public Policy, 18, 868, 10.1080/13501763.2011.593314 · DOI
- Elazar, 2001, The federal vision. Legitimacy and levels of governance in the United States and the European Union, 31, 10.1093/0199245002.003.0002 · DOI
- Elster, 1985, Ulysses and the sirens. Studies in rationality and irrationality
- Epstein, 2006, Financialization and the world economy
- Følledsal, 2006, Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 533, 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00650.x · DOI
- Gourevitch, 1978, The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics, International Organization, 32, 881, 10.1017/S002081830003201X · DOI
- Green-Cowles, 2000, Transforming Europe: Europeanization and structural change
- Hensengerth, 2015, Multi-level governance: The missing linkages
- Héritier, 2008, The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance, Journal of Public Policy, 28, 1, 10.1017/S0143814X08000755 · DOI
- Hooghe, 2010, The rise of regional authority. A comparative study of 42 democracies, 10.4324/9780203852170 · DOI
- Katzenstein, 1985, Small states in world markets
- Keating, 1988, State and regional nationalism. Territorial politics and the European state
- Keck, 1998, Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics
- Kohler-Koch, 1999, The transformation of governance in the European Union, 10.4324/9780203279625 · DOI
- Kohler-Koch, 2007, Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union
- Liddle, 2015, Multi-level governance: The missing linkages
- Lord, 2013, Unequal but democratic? Equality according to Karlsruhe, Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 190, 10.1080/13501763.2013.746116 · DOI
- Majone, 1999, The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems, West European Politics, 22, 1, 10.1080/01402389908425284 · DOI
- Majone, 2000, The credibility crisis of community regulation, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38, 273, 10.1111/1468-5965.00220 · DOI
- Marks, 1993, The state of the European community, 391, 10.1515/9781685856540-024 · DOI
- Marks, 1996, European Integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi-level governance, Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 341, 10.1111/j.1468-5965.1996.tb00577.x · DOI
- Moravcsik, 2002, In defence of the “democratic deficit”: Reassessing the legitimacy of the European Union, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 603, 10.1111/1468-5965.00390 · DOI
- Ongaro, 2015, Multi-level governance: The missing linkages
- Ongaro, 2010, Governance and intergovernmental relations in the European Union and the United States: Theoretical perspectives, 10.4337/9781849807067 · DOI
- Ongaro, 2011, Policy, performance and management in governance and intergovernmental relations: Transatlantic perspectives, 10.4337/9780857933232 · DOI
- Osborne, 1992, Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector
- Papadopoulos, 2007, Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance, European Law Journal, 13, 469, 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00379.x · DOI
- Peters, 2010, The new public governance?, 36
- Peters, 2004, Multilevel governance, 75
- Pettit, 1997, Republicanism. A theory of freedom and government
- Piattoni, 2008, What future shape for the EU? Reflections on multi-level governance, 73
- Piattoni, 2010, The theory of multilevel governance, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562923.001.0001 · DOI
- Piattoni, 2010, Governance and intergovernmental relations in the European Union and the United States: Theoretical perspectives, 159
- Piattoni, 2013, Representation as delegation: A basis for EU democracy?, Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 224, 10.1080/13501763.2013.746121 · DOI
- Piattoni, 2014, The politics of representation in the global age. Identification, mobilization and adjudication, 155, 10.1017/CBO9781139794961.011 · DOI
- Pierre, 2000, Governance, politics and the state
- Pollack, 2003, The engines of European integration. Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the EU, 10.1093/0199251177.001.0001 · DOI
- Porter, 1998, Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance, 10.1007/978-1-349-14865-3 · DOI · Paper page
- Putnam, 1988, Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games, International Organization, 42, 427, 10.1017/S0020818300027697 · DOI · Paper page
- Radaelli, 2009, Better regulation in Europe: Between public management and regulatory reform, Public Administration, 87, 639, 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01771.x · DOI
- Rhodes, 1997, Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability
- Rodrik, 2011, The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy
- Rokkan, 1982, The politics of territorial identity: Studies in European regionalism
- Rosamond, 2000, Theories of European integration, 10.5040/9781350389199 · DOI
- Rosanvallon, 2008, Counter-democracy. Politics in an age of distrust, 10.1017/CBO9780511755835 · DOI
- Sabel, 2008, Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the European Union, European Law Journal, 14, 271, 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00415.x · DOI · Paper page
- Sabel, 2010, Experimentalist governance in the European Union. Towards a new architecture
- Sartori, 1984, Social science concepts. A systematic analysis
- Saward, 2009, Authorisation and authenticity: Representation and the unelected, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 17, 1, 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00309.x · DOI
- Scharpf, 2009, Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity, European Political Science Review, 1, 173, 10.1017/S1755773909000204 · DOI
- Schmitter, 2004, European integration theory, 45
- Schmitter, 1979, Trends toward corporatist intermediation
- Shonfield, 1965, Modern capitalism
- Slaughter, 2004, A new world order
- Smismans, 2008, New modes of governance and the participatory myth, West European Politics, 31, 874, 10.1080/01402380802234540 · DOI
- Sørensen, 2006, Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance, American Review of Public Administration, 36, 98, 10.1177/0275074005282584 · DOI
- Strøm, 2003, Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies, 10.1093/019829784X.001.0001 · DOI
- Van Kersbergen, 2004, Governance as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy, European Journal of Political Research, 43, 143, 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00149.x · DOI · Paper page
- Weiler, 1999, The constitution of Europe. “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor” and other essays on European integration
- Weiler, 2003, European constitutionalism beyond the state, 7
- Zito, 2015, Multi-level governance: The missing linkages
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Importance of Being Consistent: Circularity Policy Aims in the European Wastewater Sector
Mäkitie, T., Damman, S., Hansen, T., Haugland, B. T., & Lund, H. B. (2025) · Circular Economy and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43615-025-00665-6 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Piattoni, S.
- Venue
- Multi-Level Governance: The Missing Linkages
- Publisher
- Emerald Group Publishing Limited
- Published
- 2015-07-06
- Pages
- 321-342
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review