on types of system and reforms that is relevant here. He notes that, on the one hand, “legislated reform” is the most typical type of intergovernmental reform in unitary Westminster systems (Toonen 2010: 39). However, he notes that intergovernmental reform is typically different “in gradualist or consensual systems,” which includes Germany (Toonen 2010: 39). In this type of system,
“…the reform of the intergovernmental…system will most likely be conducted in an organic manner, with (framework) legislation very often following pragmatic and step by step transformations of the system. … The organic systems are supposed to change ‘from within’ which often explains… the prevalence of deadlock – Reformistau – and stagnation if vested interests are unable to mutually agree on the required strategic action…” (Toonen 2010: 39-40).
Many of these points are relevant in the federal system reform process in Germany that we examined above. It also suggests that a significant area for further research is the application of the concept of MLG to a comparative analysis of institutional reforms in polities that are traditionally considered “federal” or “unitary.”
Emerging governance structures best viewed through the lens of Type II MLG are also an area for comparative analysis, and one in which the two countries in our study share similarities. In Germany, the creation of inter-municipal bodies and other Type II MLG structures discussed above, pose challenges for intergovernmental relations. In the UK, “Distributed Public Governance” manifests itself in terms of the proliferation of “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations” (“quangos”) (Bache and Flinders 2004). To what extent do such changes affect intergovernmental relations in traditionally “federal” or “unitary” MLG systems differently? This is an area for further research.
The role of political parties in multilevel systems is already an emerging area of research. With respect to our comparison, the intertwined nature of political parties and “vertically integrated multilevel systems” (Benz and Zimmer 2011:159) in both Germany and the UK would make for an interesting area of comparison. The work of Hopkin (2003; 2009) is perhaps a starting point here, particularly in the context of devolution.
The research that we have conducted for this paper has also enabled us to generate several additional areas for further research. One area that appears to be at the forefront of current writing and theorising on MLG involves normative questions such as the legitimacy of MLG systems (Piattoni 2009; 2010). While we have touched on this topic in this paper, limitations of space have prevented us from exploring the issue in greater depth here. This is an area of MLG that calls for considerably more comparative study. Normative concerns [49] are also an important element in the work of proponents of the multinational federalism approach (Gagnon 2011), and this may be an important area of theoretical dialogue between the two approaches. It may also be advisable to extend the comparison of intergovernmental relations in North America versus Europe that was initially explored in Ongaro et al. (2010) to other geographic areas. Further analysis of unitary states in terms of MLG is also a promising area for future investigation.
References
Auel, Katrin. (2008). Still No Exit from the Joint Decision Trap: The German Federal Reform(s). German Politics, 17(4), 424-439.
Bache, Ian & Matthew Flinders. (2004). Multilevel Governance and the Study of the British State. Public Policy and Administration, 19(1), 31-51.
Benz, Arthur. (2007). Inter-Regional Competition in Co-operative Federalism: New Modes of Multilevel Governance in Germany. Regional & Federal Studies, 17 (4), 421-436.
Benz, Arthur. (2008). From Joint Decision Traps to Over-Regulated Federalism: Adverse Effects of a Successful Constitutional Reform. German Politics, 17(4), 440-456.
Benz, Arthur & Christina Zimmer. (2011). Germany: Varieties of Democracy in a Federal System. In Loughlin, John, Frank Hendriks & Anders Lindström, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 146-172.
Braun, Dietmar. (2011). Multilevel Governance in Germany and Switzerland. in Michael Zürn, Sonja Wälti and Henrik Enderlein, eds. Handbook on Multilevel Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 168-183.
Bulmer, Simon, et al. (2006). UK Devolution and the European Union: A Tale of Cooperative Asymmetry? Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36(1), 75-93.
Däubler, Thomas and Debus, Marc. (2009). Government Formation and Policy Formulation in the German States. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(1), 73-95.
Gagnon, Alain-G. (2011). Gouvernance multi-niveaux et la reconfiguration de l'espace politique. Paper presented at the Conference on New Regionalism and Multilevel Governance, held in the Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain, October 13-14.
Gamble, Andrew. (2000). The Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36(1), 19-35.
Harfst, Jorn, and Peter Wirth. (2011). Structural Change in Former Mining Regions: Problems, Potentials and Capacities in Multilevel Governance Systems. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 36 (1), 19-35.
Hogwood, Patricia, et al. (2000). Devolution and EU Policy Making: The Territorial Challenge. Public Policy and Administration, 15(20), 81-95.
Hopkin, Jonathan. (2009). Party Matters: Devolution and Party Politics in Britain and Spain.” Party Politics, 15(2), 179-198.
Hopkin, Jonathan. (2003). Political Decentralisation, Electoral Change and Party Organisational Adaptation: A Framework for Analysis. European Urban and Regional Studies 10(3), 227–237.
Jeffery, Charlie. (2008). Groundhog Day: The Non-Reform of German Federalism Again. German Politics 17 (4), 587-592.
[50] Jeffery, Charlie. (2007). Towards a New Understanding of Multilevel Governance in Germany? The Federalism Reform Debate and European Integration. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 48 (1), 17-27.
Jeffery, Charlie & Daniel Wincott. (2006). Devolution in the United Kingdom: Statehood and Citizenship in Transition. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36 (1), 3-18.
Lluch, Jaime. (2011). Autonomism and Federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism (forthcoming in print, online early access, published May 27).
Moore, Carolyn, Wade Jacoby & Arthur B. Gunlicks (2008). German Federalism in Transition? German Politics, 17(4), 393-407.
Moravcsik, Andrew. (1993). Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmental Approach. Journal of Common Markets Studies 31 (4), 473-524.
Ongaro, Edoardo, et al. (2010). Governance and Intergovernmental Relations in the European Union and the United States: Theoretical Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Peters, B. Guy & Pierre, J. (2004). Multilevel Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? In Bache, Ian and Matthew Flinders, eds Multilevel Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 75-92.
Piattoni, Simona. (2009). Multilevel Governance: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis. Journal of European Integration, 31(2), 163-180.
Piattoni, Simona. (2010). The Theory of Multilevel Governance: Conceptual, Empirical, and Normative Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scharpf, Fritz W. (2008). Community, Diversity and Autonomy: The Challenges of Reforming German Federalism, German Politics, 17(4), 509-521.
Scharpf, Fritz W. (2009). Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity. European Political Science Review, 1(2), 173-204.
Stein, Michael B. & Lisa Turkewitsch. (2008). The Concept of Multilevel Governance in Studies of Federalism. Paper Presented at the 2008 International Political Science Association (IPSA) International Conference International Political Science: New Theoretical and Regional Perspectives, Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada on May 2. Retrieved from: www.montreal2008.info/site/images/PAPERS/section3/RC%2028-%20Stein%20Turkewitsch%203.4.pdf.