Shortcomings of Multi-Level Governance Essay Example

Multilevel governance falls short of being an actual theory of integration and should more accurately be thought of as a conceptual framework. It is a methodology used in political science and also in the public administration theories which were derived from the European integration. Notably, most countries have not yet achieved the multilevel governance due to numerous hindrances such as corruption, lack of financial resources to support it, selfish leaders, and high illiteracy levels of the citizens. Notably, the developing countries are the most affected as they are far from achieving the governance as compared to the developed ones. Indeed, the multilevel governance has remained a mere speculation or imaginations in most states; as a result, action needs to be taken to ensure they achieve it.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The process of European integration originated after the signing of the Paris treaty in 1951. Markedly, it ensured the coordination and arrangements of common policies across all the levels which contribute to the well-being of a country (Bache, Ian, and Matthew 35). The major contribution of the integration includes inclusion if the public participation in the country's decision making. It also increases transparency as well as reducing the controlling cost in the management or governance process. Additionally, the multilevel governance helps to eliminate the setbacks resulting from the one-sided mode of governance such as a dictatorship.

There are numerous benefits accruing the multilevel governance particularly when the government surrenders or delegates some of its sovereign powers to other policy areas. Notably, it aids in joint decision making which makes the other bodies, as well as the citizens, feel appreciated as they are directly or indirectly involved in the governance process. Such a move helps in economic coordination and continued participation of the other agencies leading to economic and political stability of the state.

European integration consists of various contributing factors. However, more attention is paid to the process of political integration. Notably, it is the procedure that requires the sacrifice of the desire to independently formulate the domestic and foreign policies in order to involve other states in the formulation process. Importantly, it helps in joint and delegated decisions which commonly use the elites, parliamentarians, and civil servants among other useful organs in the state. It is worth noting that, the primary predecessors of the European integration are the neo-functionalism and federalism (Jachtenfuchs 125). Markedly the duo played a significant role in ending the First World War through the promotion of intellectual inspiration. However, some scholars such as Mitrany have come out strongly arguing that federalism does not lead to integration among nations as it largely leads to national rivalries. Besides, it threatens individuals' freedom deeming it appropriate.

The first and second world war prompted the need to for different countries to come together and device the various methods that could be used in order to enhance a peaceful coexistence among nations. Important to note, most federalist advocated for a clear transfer of power among the entrusted authorities such as the national governments and the military. In addition, they sought that countries should come together and formulate laws regulating how each and every state should foster the leadership or govern its citizens (Moravcsik 230). Also, it ensures an upright relationship with other countries.it is achieved when countries came up with ways of dealing with conflicts whether internal or external through a mediation process. This can be clearly illustrated by the international conference which drew up the federal European constitution.

Various scholars have come up with theories trying to explain the European integration in relation to the multilevel governance. They include firstly, neo-functionalism theory which explains why states intentionally merge or collaborate with their neighbors making hem to lose their sovereignty and in return establish the modern ways of handling conflicts among themselves. Secondly, inter-governmental which emerged to counter the neo-functionalist analysis since the scholars felt that less attention would be given to the domestic politics.

Lastly, supernatural governance which advocated for the creation of a transnational society mandated to discuss and implement integrative agendas. The multilevel governance is the originator or forerunner of the neuro-functionalism but although it is not concerned with the European integration (Sikkink 151). Basically, it originated from the structural development of the European Union which was later developed and applied by many countries worldwide. However, some scholars were against the multilevel governance arguing that it had various flaws. They felt that there was the element of the loss of control from the main organ; the government due to the collective decision-making process. It is worth noting that, involving various individual before making a resolution makes the determining party lose independence.

Basically, there is two form of multi-level governance. They include type 1 and type 2. The distinguishing features in the duo include firstly, the former focuses on the general jurisdiction while the latter is emphasized on particular or specific tasks in a given jurisdiction. Secondly, type 1 deal with non-intersecting members but type 2 deals with intersecting membership (Bernard, Nick 56). Thirdly, type 1 stipulates the minimum number of levels which can be handled whereas type 2 does not work with the limits in its dominion. Meaning that it can comfortably work with as many levels as possible. Lastly, type 1 has a wide architectural design which cannot be easily altered but type 2 has a flexible system which is subject to changes at the comfort of the users. Countries have to choose among two types of multi-level governance and implement the one which fits their requirements. Notably, the level of democracy varies between type 1 and 2 MLG. In order to clearly evaluate the democracy levels, the following models are used electoral, pluralist, and the elite democratic.

Governance is the ability to jointly make decisions. Notably, there exists a difference between the governance approach and European integration. The former tries to explain why the European Union used the domestic policies whereas the latter tires to explore combined institutions as well as the various levels of governance in the network analysis. Important to note, the governance approach has played a vital role in the validation of European integration. The governance process was developed through a number of stages. They include conceptual roots which were the initial stage in the European integration. Ideally, it involved a clear understanding of the description or type of euro polity in existence. However, the stage had some weaknesses since it lacked the theoretical focus concerned with developing the integration. Secondly, Europeanization referred to the extent to which the policies were implemented by the member states which were aimed at mutually benefiting them.

Thirdly, the growth of regulatory policies which helped the European Union to formulate policies and laws aimed at safeguarding all the member countries from poor forms of governance. Besides, the policies further enhanced the European integration which helped to ensure a peaceful coexistence among the member countries. Notably, the policies stipulated the proceeds be used in the event the member countries experienced conflict either internally or externally. Lastly, network governance helped the member nations to coordinate their activities. Consequently, the creation of a harmonized networking system improved European integration. Important to note, the governance system dictates the success or failure of a country economically and politically.

In most countries, the MLG has not been fully achieved due to lack of cooperation among the concerned parties. In others, the government feels that through adopting the multilevel form of governance, some of its powers are deprived (Rosamond 89). Markedly, the collective decision-making process is not an easy task especially when it involves many participants due to misunderstandings before they come to a conclusion. In some scenarios, some of the parties are driven by personal interests thus hindering the decision making process. The continued changes in the governance systems have continually changed the democratic accountability further hindering the decision-making process.

Conclusion

In brief, the multilevel governance has not been fully accomplished by many countries mostly due to its complexity in terms of its application. Despite the efforts made by the European integration, most of them are finding it hard to adopt either type 1or type 2. Notably, the scholars should enlighten the public and the government on the benefits of the multilevel forms of governance so that the targeted parties can embrace it. The decision-making process should not be left on the hand of the government alone. Instead, other stakeholders ought to be involved so as to make and wise collective decisions. Indeed, the multi-level governance falls short of being an actual theory of integration.

Works Cited

Bache, Ian, and Matthew Flinders. "Multi-level governance and the study of the British state." Public Policy and Administration 19.1 (2004): 31-51.

Bernard, Nick. Multilevel governance in the European Union. Springer, 2002.

Jachtenfuchs, Markus. "The governance approach to European integration." JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 39.2 (2001)

Moravcsik, Andrew. "What can we learn from the collapse of the European constitutional project?." Politische Vierteljahresschrift 47.2 (2006): 219-241.

Rosamond, Ben. "Theories of European integration." (2000).

Sikkink, Kathryn. "Patterns of dynamic multilevel governance and the insider-outsider coalition." Transnational Protest and global activism (2005): 151-173.