Samenvatting BBO II
Inhoudsopgave
Hoorcollege 1; wat is multi-level governance? ................................................................................................. 2
Hooghe & Marks: Unraveling the Centra; State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance....................... 2
Piattonsi: Multi-level governance; a Historical and Conceptual Analysis ..................................................... 8
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Hoorcollege 2; de uitdagingen van de overheid anno 21e eeuw, van government naar governance .............. 22
Peters & Pierre: Governance Without Government? .................................................................................. 22
Gjaltema et al.: From government to governance … to meta-governance ................................................. 33
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................... 44
Hoorcollege 3; Veranderingen verticaal bestuur: veranderende rol voor de Nederlandse lokale overheid &
Multi-level governance ook “good governance” ............................................................................................ 50
Agranoff: Local Governments in Multileven Systems: Emergent Public Administration Challenges ........... 50
Fraanje & Herweijer: innoveren in samenwerking: een alternatief voor herindeling? ............................... 59
Mostert: Who should do what in environmental management? ................................................................ 69
Breeman & Van Eijk: Samenwerkend bestuur; bestuurlijke kaart van Nederland ...................................... 75
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................... 76
Hoorcollege 4; Veranderingen horizontaal bestuur: veranderende rol van private actoren & Impact op de
overheid als publieke organisatie ................................................................................................................... 85
O’Leary & Vij: Collaborative Public Management ...................................................................................... 85
Van Eijk & Steen” The public encounter and the role of citizens ................................................................. 96
Breeman & Van Eijk: Samenwerkend bestuur; bestuurlijke kaart van Nederland .................................... 109
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................. 109
,Hoorcollege 1; wat is multi-level governance?
Hooghe & Marks: Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level
Governance
• Modern governance is, and should be, dispersed across multiple centers of authority;
but how should multi-level governance be organized? What are the basis
alternatives?
• The article states that the diffusion of decision making away from the central state
rase fundamental issues of design that can be conceptualized as 2 contrasting types
of governance
− Types are logically coherent + represent alternative responses to fundamental
problems of coordination
• The study of local government in the US + Western Europe bears directly on multi-
level, polycentric governance
• An influential starting point: Tiebout’s 1956 article
− Established the claim that competition among multiple local jurisdictions
leads to more efficient provision of local public services
• The literatures share the idea that dispersion of governance across multiple
jurisdictions is more flexible than concertation of governance in one jurisdiction
− Efficient governance adjusts jurisdictions to the trade-off between the virtues
+ vices of centralization
− Large jurisdictions are good because
- They have the virtue of exploiting economies of scale in the provision
of public goods
- Internalizing policy externalities, allowing for more efficient taxation
- Facilitating more efficient redistribution
- Enlarging the territorial scope of security and market exchange
− Large jurisdictions are bad when
- They impose a single policy on diverse ecological systems/territorially
heterogeneous populations
• Criticism of centralized government: It is insensitive to varying scale efficiencies from
policy to policy
− Economies of scale are more likely to characterize the production of capital-
intensive public goods, instead of labor-intensive services because economies
accrue from spreading costs over larger outputs
• There is consensus that flexible governance must be multi-level, but there is no
consensus about how MLG should be structured
There are 2 types
,Type 1
• Type I: Describes jurisdictions at limited number of levels which are general purpose;
they bundle together multiple functions, including a range of policy responsibilities +
court system + representative institutions
− Type I: beschrijft jurisdicties op een beperkt aantal niveaus die algemeen
bedoeld zijn; ze bundelen meerdere functies, waaronder een reeks
beleidsverantwoordelijkheden + rechtssysteem + representatieve instellingen
• Some characteristics:
− Describes jurisdictions at limited number of levels
− The jurisdictions (international, national, regional, meso, local) are general-
purpose
− They bundle together multiple functions, including policy responsibilities +
court system + representation institutions
− Membership boundaries don’t intersect
− Every citizen is located in a Russian Doll set of nested jurisdictions where
there is one and only relevant jurisdiction at any particular territorial scale
− Territorial jurisdictions are stable for periods of several decades
− Allocation of policy competencies across jurisdictional levels are flexible
• Intellectual foundation: Federalism
− Federalism is concerned with power sharing among limited number of
governments operating at a few levels + relationship between central
government and nonintersecting subnational governments
• Framework is systemwide, functions are bundles, levels of government are multiple
but limited in number
, • Characteristics
− General-purpose jurisdictions
- Decision making powers dispersed across jurisdictions, but bundled in
small number of packages
- Emphasize costs of decomposing authority into disparate packages
- Idea is strong in Europe, where local government usually eercises wide
spread of functions, reflecting the the concept of general-purpose
local authorities exercising comprehensive care for their communities”
(Norton 1991, 22)
− Nonintersecting Memberships
- Durable boundaries that are nonintersecting at any particular level
- Memberships of jurisdictions are higher + lower tiers don’t intersect
− Limited Number of Jurisdictional Levels
- Type I organizes jurisdictions at just a few levels
- It is common to distinguish local, intermediate, and central level
− Systemwide, Durable Architecture
- Systemic institutional choice
- Type I usually adopt the trias politicas structure in modern
democracies
- Type I are durable; jurisdictional reform is costly + unusual
- Institutions responsible for governance are sticky + tend to outlive
conditions that brought them into being
Type 2
• Type II: Composed of specialized jurisdictions, fragmented into functionally specific
pieces
• Some characteristics
− Composed of specialized jurisdictions
− Fragmented into functionally specific pieces
− Number of such jurisdictions is potentially huge + scale they operate vary
finely
− No great fixity in their existence
− Tend to be lean + flexible; they come and go as demands for governance
change
• Number of jurisdictions is potentially vast, rather than limited
• Don’t operate on just a few levels, but operate at numerous territorial scales
• Task specific, rather than general-purpose
• Conception is predominant among neoclassical economists + public choice theorists
Inhoudsopgave
Hoorcollege 1; wat is multi-level governance? ................................................................................................. 2
Hooghe & Marks: Unraveling the Centra; State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance....................... 2
Piattonsi: Multi-level governance; a Historical and Conceptual Analysis ..................................................... 8
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Hoorcollege 2; de uitdagingen van de overheid anno 21e eeuw, van government naar governance .............. 22
Peters & Pierre: Governance Without Government? .................................................................................. 22
Gjaltema et al.: From government to governance … to meta-governance ................................................. 33
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................... 44
Hoorcollege 3; Veranderingen verticaal bestuur: veranderende rol voor de Nederlandse lokale overheid &
Multi-level governance ook “good governance” ............................................................................................ 50
Agranoff: Local Governments in Multileven Systems: Emergent Public Administration Challenges ........... 50
Fraanje & Herweijer: innoveren in samenwerking: een alternatief voor herindeling? ............................... 59
Mostert: Who should do what in environmental management? ................................................................ 69
Breeman & Van Eijk: Samenwerkend bestuur; bestuurlijke kaart van Nederland ...................................... 75
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................... 76
Hoorcollege 4; Veranderingen horizontaal bestuur: veranderende rol van private actoren & Impact op de
overheid als publieke organisatie ................................................................................................................... 85
O’Leary & Vij: Collaborative Public Management ...................................................................................... 85
Van Eijk & Steen” The public encounter and the role of citizens ................................................................. 96
Breeman & Van Eijk: Samenwerkend bestuur; bestuurlijke kaart van Nederland .................................... 109
Hoorcollege ............................................................................................................................................. 109
,Hoorcollege 1; wat is multi-level governance?
Hooghe & Marks: Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level
Governance
• Modern governance is, and should be, dispersed across multiple centers of authority;
but how should multi-level governance be organized? What are the basis
alternatives?
• The article states that the diffusion of decision making away from the central state
rase fundamental issues of design that can be conceptualized as 2 contrasting types
of governance
− Types are logically coherent + represent alternative responses to fundamental
problems of coordination
• The study of local government in the US + Western Europe bears directly on multi-
level, polycentric governance
• An influential starting point: Tiebout’s 1956 article
− Established the claim that competition among multiple local jurisdictions
leads to more efficient provision of local public services
• The literatures share the idea that dispersion of governance across multiple
jurisdictions is more flexible than concertation of governance in one jurisdiction
− Efficient governance adjusts jurisdictions to the trade-off between the virtues
+ vices of centralization
− Large jurisdictions are good because
- They have the virtue of exploiting economies of scale in the provision
of public goods
- Internalizing policy externalities, allowing for more efficient taxation
- Facilitating more efficient redistribution
- Enlarging the territorial scope of security and market exchange
− Large jurisdictions are bad when
- They impose a single policy on diverse ecological systems/territorially
heterogeneous populations
• Criticism of centralized government: It is insensitive to varying scale efficiencies from
policy to policy
− Economies of scale are more likely to characterize the production of capital-
intensive public goods, instead of labor-intensive services because economies
accrue from spreading costs over larger outputs
• There is consensus that flexible governance must be multi-level, but there is no
consensus about how MLG should be structured
There are 2 types
,Type 1
• Type I: Describes jurisdictions at limited number of levels which are general purpose;
they bundle together multiple functions, including a range of policy responsibilities +
court system + representative institutions
− Type I: beschrijft jurisdicties op een beperkt aantal niveaus die algemeen
bedoeld zijn; ze bundelen meerdere functies, waaronder een reeks
beleidsverantwoordelijkheden + rechtssysteem + representatieve instellingen
• Some characteristics:
− Describes jurisdictions at limited number of levels
− The jurisdictions (international, national, regional, meso, local) are general-
purpose
− They bundle together multiple functions, including policy responsibilities +
court system + representation institutions
− Membership boundaries don’t intersect
− Every citizen is located in a Russian Doll set of nested jurisdictions where
there is one and only relevant jurisdiction at any particular territorial scale
− Territorial jurisdictions are stable for periods of several decades
− Allocation of policy competencies across jurisdictional levels are flexible
• Intellectual foundation: Federalism
− Federalism is concerned with power sharing among limited number of
governments operating at a few levels + relationship between central
government and nonintersecting subnational governments
• Framework is systemwide, functions are bundles, levels of government are multiple
but limited in number
, • Characteristics
− General-purpose jurisdictions
- Decision making powers dispersed across jurisdictions, but bundled in
small number of packages
- Emphasize costs of decomposing authority into disparate packages
- Idea is strong in Europe, where local government usually eercises wide
spread of functions, reflecting the the concept of general-purpose
local authorities exercising comprehensive care for their communities”
(Norton 1991, 22)
− Nonintersecting Memberships
- Durable boundaries that are nonintersecting at any particular level
- Memberships of jurisdictions are higher + lower tiers don’t intersect
− Limited Number of Jurisdictional Levels
- Type I organizes jurisdictions at just a few levels
- It is common to distinguish local, intermediate, and central level
− Systemwide, Durable Architecture
- Systemic institutional choice
- Type I usually adopt the trias politicas structure in modern
democracies
- Type I are durable; jurisdictional reform is costly + unusual
- Institutions responsible for governance are sticky + tend to outlive
conditions that brought them into being
Type 2
• Type II: Composed of specialized jurisdictions, fragmented into functionally specific
pieces
• Some characteristics
− Composed of specialized jurisdictions
− Fragmented into functionally specific pieces
− Number of such jurisdictions is potentially huge + scale they operate vary
finely
− No great fixity in their existence
− Tend to be lean + flexible; they come and go as demands for governance
change
• Number of jurisdictions is potentially vast, rather than limited
• Don’t operate on just a few levels, but operate at numerous territorial scales
• Task specific, rather than general-purpose
• Conception is predominant among neoclassical economists + public choice theorists
