Читать книгу Borders and Margins - Группа авторов - Страница 9

In Chapter 1, Michael Stein and Lisa Turkewitsch provide an initial analysis of this concept, applying it to federations and decentralized unitary systems, such as those in Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). The concept of MLG, they argue, is a fairly recent one, emerging with the deepening integration of the European Union in the early 1990s, and drawing its basic structure from the ideas and institutions created in conjunction with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Moving from this historical context to present-day situations, Stein and Turkewitsch cite the United Kingdom and Germany as modern examples illustrating the limitations of and emerging patterns in MLG theory, first highlighting its strengths and weaknesses and comparing it to more traditional approaches, namely those of neo-functionalism, neo-institutionalism (both decentralized and multinational federalism), and centralized unitarism. They also include contributions to MLG theory that further highlight its utility as a comparative analytical tool, especially in relation to the UK and [19] Germany. In comparing these two EU polities – which share demographic and institutional similarities – they show that the ability to conceptualize these nations within traditional frameworks has eroded considerably. This is particularly the case for the UK, where the MLG framework, Stein and Turkewitsch suggest, may be best adapted to the British climate. And while the UK, in its political development, may require a suitable theoretical framework, Germany, for its part, has long-standing historical ties to MLG theory through the study of German federalism. MLG theory may be viewed as an extension of federalism, therefore, and may be used to analyze features of federal and decentralized unitary systems as well as the EU, as Stein and Turkewitsch note, citing the German state, which encompasses both types of MLG. Because it is better suited to analyzing the changes in these polities, both now and in the future, the flexible MLG framework, the authors believe, lends itself to a more accurate assessment of changing forms of governance than traditional comparative theories.

In his chapter on “Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance,” Yannis Papadopoulos analyzes democratic accountability in MLG systems. While MLG networks generate new and novel forms of accountability, he argues, its democratic dimension poses a problem, owing to the inherent structure of MLG networks and to issues of accountability. His chapter focuses chiefly on public and democratic forms of accountability, specifically as they pertain to the role played by actors in network governance and political problems stemming from accountability deficits. In doing so, he explains why decentralization and, increasingly, the lack of political authority in the market system generate problems for the quality of democracy in federated systems. These problems are caused by a lack of democratic accountability in the governance structure, stemming from four properties of network governance: Weak network visibility and uncoupling, leading to often informal and opaque decision-making processes; policy networks composed of actors only indirectly accountable to citizens and operating in isolation from democratic institutions; MLG, which can lead to fragmentation and compromise cooperation and (therefore) accountability; and the tendency towards peer accountability in networks, with the results that actors are primarily accountable to peer groups as opposed to the public. These network forms of governance, he suggests, give rise to a variety of problems related to accountability. Papadopoulos concludes by proposing a decision-making model for addressing accountability deficits through the use of institutional mechanisms.

Alain-G. Gagnon looks at how the concept of MLG redefines the political space. As our world grows increasingly heterogeneous, both on a societal and ideological level, theoretical frameworks used to conceptualize the space must take into account this diversity. This serves as the departure point for Gagnon’s argument whereby multinational federalism reflects the changing societal and political structures of our time. Gagnon cites Canada’s linguistic and cultural [20] diversity as an example of how the central government’s will can play a part in tensions between different cultural groups and thus erode the spirit of multinational federalism. While the multilevel approach highlights the role of sometimes overlooked actors and their contribution to government programs and policies, Gagnon notes that it fails to take into account their decision-making objectives, nor does it account for the dual pillars of federalism, namely the focus on the common populace and issues of governmental autonomy. In short, Gagnon suggests that the shortcomings of the multilevel approach serve to undermine democratic practices, making it particularly problematic as a framework for analyzing diverse national settings. In the belief that this approach ignores such issues as social structure, Gagnon notes that the multilevel approach is useful for analyzing efficacy and the economy in homogenous state structures, which he believes are rare in the modern world. Federalism, he argues, is capable of addressing these complexities.