Chapter 4: Cohesion policy, multilevel governance and democracy
This chapter seeks to draw the contours of a new ‘model of democracy’ for interconnected political settings such as the European Union (EU) and argues that Cohesion policy already foreshadows some features of this new model. Multilevel governance (MLG) is probably the most apt descriptor of the activity of governing in contemporary societies. Whether we look at subnational, national or international phenomena, it seems unavoidable to find multiple governmental levels and multiple actors simultaneously activated in making, implementing and assessing political decisions. The distinctive traits of this new way of governing are that public and private actors and multiple levels of government cooperate in the making of policy decisions by engaging in relationships and procedures which defy existing distinctions and hierarchies. Multilevel governance, in other words, calls into question two constitutive elements of the political order of the modern era: the distinction between the public and the private, and the hierarchical or nested nature of governments at different territorial levels. The separation between the public and the private sphere, so typical of political science discourse during the age of state-and nation-building, has crumbled under the impact of phenomena as varied as the taming of international anarchy after World War II – which derived from the acknowledgment of the existence of an international community with a legitimate interest in containing interstate anarchy – and the cultural revolution of the late 1960s which added ‘quality of life’ and ‘right to roots’ motivations to public mobilisation and spurred the massive involvement of civil society into public life. In different ways, both phenomena called into question the distinctiveness of the public from the private sphere both domestically and internationally and triggered transnational mobilisation (Keck and Sikkink 1998). While until World War II central governments of sovereign national states stood at the crossroads of these empirical, analytical and normative dimensions and guarded the gates between these boundaries, at the end of the 1960s the Westphalian sovereign, unitary and distinctive state was seriously challenged (Piattoni 2010).
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.