Comparative Public Governance Exam Prep PDF

Comparative Public Governance LECTURE 1 Governance „Governance is a process bringing together a multitude of actors of different types towards some collective goal” (Peters&Pierre 2016) 1. Empirical phenomenon of public-private forms of collaboration, more abstract, shared meaning...

Comparative Public Governance LECTURE 1 Governance „Governance is a process bringing together a multitude of actors of different types towards some collective goal” (Peters&Pierre 2016) 1. Empirical phenomenon of public-private forms of collaboration, more abstract, shared meaning 2. Normative model that the state can govern more efficiently by coordinating actions rather than organizing itself based on norms and values, how you want things to be 3. Theory of steering and coordination as generic aspect of governance, relevant to any organization So if you have all these, if you have all these empirical phenomenon of governance, you can kind of extract theory from some people try to create the theory of governing non normative sense, but a theory of governing for example, thinking about these are the actors that are involved. What is best? To structure the thoughts about governance into a theory that you can then use to also apply in any situation. So not only in government, national government. Public Governance is an interactive process concerned with the exchange between state and society (Peters&Pierre 2016) Interaction state-society 1. Articulation of societal expectations (or: demand) on government vs. the capacity (or: supply) of governments (ungovernability and overload) 2. Shadows of society, market and expertise: governance through non-state actors 3. Understanding the transformation, not elimination of the state The governments, national governments remain very much at the centre of governance. That is not about the elimination of the stage. It is really about transforming their role. It's also, I think, a very important starting point for this course. we talked quite a little, quite a lot about the government. But also in relation to those other actors and, of course, with study under focusing on the EU. Shadow of expertise: experts e.g. medical staff during COVID Shadow of authority: give that mandate, execute Shadow of markets: private parties, give Comparative Governance as functional model that facilitates comparison 1. Comparative governance as systematic study and comparison of diverse forms of governance 2. Course facilitates comparison of levels and actors of governance, against the backdrop of key concepts LECTURE 2 Assessing Theories Field of public administration multidimensional Utility of theory is to describe explain and predict (and to improve?) Three branches of public administration theory - Positivist: there is one reality, same description of reality - Interpretivist: reality can be interpreted, different descriptions - Normative: how things should be Ultimate test od theory relates to how useful it is Does it increase our understanding of public administration Elegance/prarisomy: Ability to account concisely for the phenomon under study by using tightly ordered internal logic Explanatory capacity: Ability of theory to explain real-world phenomena Replicability: Ability to generalize beyond confines of one case or handful of cases Descriptive capacity: Ability to portray the real world accurately as it is observed not just describe it but also explain it Predictive capacity: Ability to generate testable hypotheses and make probabilistic assessments about the future can we predict it Empirical Warrant: Relative success of theory in gaining empirical confirmation for hypotheses and probabilistic assessment it generates Theory of governance - Governance as a social/political complex and multifaceted (Public& non-public) process - Challenges traditional state-centric models - Importance of linking state and non-state actors Theory of governance: Model - Focus on essential functions for governance, failure if one of them is not well executed - Applicable to democratic and non-democratic states - Enables comparison Decision-making: - Important because of black-box in other models & permeates other fuctions - Core task for government/elected officals (responsiveness & accountability) - But also societal part involved by feeding ideas and source of legitimation - Disagreement likely, especially on means to reach the ends - Need to be translated into more specific pursuits for steering - Non-state actors then more important - Throughout: think about actors involved, time and path-dependecy, scarcity of resources, interests, cooperation needed (? goal selection: - Common set of goals for society must be developed and articulated - But, these goals are broad, focus on long-term, requires cooperation and entail cross-cutting characteristics - Agenda setting and selection of goals important - Governments always need to ratify decisions in the end - Comparative element: within/between political systems - Crucial element is process of aggregation - Usually solved through majoritarian rule - Think about: exclusion costs, decision-making costs resource mobilization: - Mobilize resources in complex financial environment - Government well positioned to do so - Private sector actors? Implementation - Implementation of plans with a linkage to its goals - Challenge: information flows and coordination - Crucial: link public programs with social partners that surround public policy evaluation, feedback and learning - Accountability and feedback important - Information about past behaviour needed and thereby how they should behave in future Evaluatory remarks: - Governance is never linear - Need to understand how actors are involved and evaluate the roles that they play in making governance function (!!!EXAM) - Are there crucial elements missing from the model? Essence of governing: decision-making - Key aspects of governing - Questions asked: how are decisions made and which actors involved - Both formal (highlights actual decision making) and societal process (highlits interaction between government and societal actors) - Most decisions aim at steering or regulating society in some respect - Various approaches that perceive issues, actors and process differently o Rationality o Bounded rationality o Multiple streams and garbage can o Advocacy coalition framework Rationality Decision-making where actors try to maximize personal or organizational utility - Means-ends logic Assumptions: - Actors have same set and known order of preferences - Actors have perfect information  - Outcomes evaluated on cost/benefit ratio - Consequences of decision-making for governance are predictable and stable - Individuals and not organizations make decisions Problems: focusses on formal aspect and on one decision Logic of appropriateness: - Influenced by shared rules, identities, situations, actions, contexts or history Logic of consequences: - Decisions based on future consequences, results or goals Bounded Rationality Actors try to be rational (‘intendenly rational’) - But within boundaries of information and analysis - So take smaller, less comprehensive decisions and learn from them Satisficing: seek decisions that are good enough for now, can change later Logic of consequences and appropriateness bounded too Problems with theory: - Decisions can be made again and again? - What about rapid changing processes? - Limited applicability in context of multiple layers and interactive context Irrationality Decision-making is consistently biased by certain environmental conditions or general human predispositions Biases include: - Anchoring: past disproportionally influences future - Availability bias: decision-making based on readily available information, experiences - Representativeness: existing stereotypes in assessing others Garbage can and multiple streams Governments face complex, confusing and inconsistent environments. They apply loose coupling: delegate, decentralize and contract out. - Large decision discretion for involved entities and more chaotic processes Garbage can theory: temporal sorting process under conditions of loose coupling. - Under right circumstances, organizational competences and needs will find each other in decisions Application of garbage can: multiple streams model - Three parallel but independent streams of political, policy and problem stream. - Triggers create window of opportunity - Policy entrepeneurs: need to be ready and push forward a decision 3 streams: politics, policy, problem Advocacy coalition framework - Set of core ideas define a policy or governance  - These ideas differ in terms of their centrality for policy - Actors protect core ideas, but change more derivative ideas - Subssystems where governing takes place - Applicable for interactive versions of governance where governance is bargaining over status quo Think-Pair-Share assignment on digital service act (EXAM) 1. Context: The European Union’s decision to implement the Digital Services Act (DSA) in 2022 is a significant example of governance and decision-making. The DSA aims to create a safer digital space where the fundamental rights of users are protected (safety, combating disinformation, consumer rights) and to establish a level playing field for businesses where innovation is stimulated. 2. Timeframe: 1. December, 2020: European Commission presented DSA. 2. July, 2022: European Parliament adopts DSA in first reading. 3. October – November 2022: DSA formally adopted by European Parliament and Council of European Union. 3. Throughout: member states and stakeholders (digital service providers, like Google), consumer organizations, civil society groups and experts) provided input and feedback Think (3 minutes): - Individually think about how the following decision-making models could be applied to the DSA. o Rational decision-making (1) o Bounded rationality (2) o Irrationality (3) o Advocacy Coalition framework (4) Pair (3 minutes): - Discuss your thoughts with a partner: discuss application of decision-making to DSA-context with partner. Share (5 minutes): - Plenary discussion of some group outcomes Rational Decision-Making: Systematic approach with consultations and impact assessments. Bounded Rationality: Limited information due to complexity and rapid changes. Irrationality: Disproportionate prioritization of certain stakeholders. Advocacy Coalition Framework: Consumer protection agencies and political parties work together to push for this change. Public administration consists of various theories, which can be evaluated by means of various standards Governance model of Pieters and Pierre focus on how decisions are made and who are involved Decision-making theory holds various models that can be applied in appropriate contexts LECTURE 3 Governance Types Models to understand dynamics of governance in comparative context Abstract and emphasise crucial points of governance in practice Four ideal types of governance o Etaitiste o Liberal democratic o State centric o Interactive Ètatiste Liberal Democratic State Centric State Centric State Centric Governance Interactive Governance Governance Governance Governance Clientistic version Corporatism version Corporate pluralism version - State is primary and sole - State still strong - State remains - Open to - Political patrons - Emphasizes role of provider of governance but less dominant central actor as participation of all utilize roles within public and private - State rule hierarchically and - Interest groups, they set rules for types of state to provide actors in networks suppress social actors social actors now societal partners to organizations benefits for - Interaction between (sometimes involved for in closer participate - Limited ability of individuals and societal actors and legitimacy purposes only) relationship with - Legitimates role of state to manage localities in return for public sector - State is primary and sole government. interest groups in access support - Government provider of governance But: governance, but - Public sector still - Relationship of establishes some - State rule hierarchically and o Social actors first limited in number decides but societal patron to state that parameters for suppress social actors compete for - State has actors have provides them with actors (sometimes involved for access and power possibility to substantial capacity to induce - But could still legitimacy purposes only) o Involvement social revoke influence over clients into withdraw delegation - Dominant approach to actors limited and participation of choices cooperation with - Example: local governance historically influence extend groups - Example: patron environmental policy o but society evolved to only one area - Example: labor and agriculture in - Example: Turkish in Denmark and demands for o Social actors wage policies in Netherlands politics - Claims: more participation selected that align Germany democratic and increased with views of better outcomes (?) - In some circumstances or public sector actor policy areas almost any o Social actors system governs in this way operate largely - Can also be found in outside political democratic regimes but less system often - Mostly in Anglo- American systems - Mostly limited number of parties to control government and often majoritarian  Ètatiste Liberal Democratic State Centric State Centric State Centric Governance Interactive Governance Governance Governance Governance Clientistic version Corporatism version Corporate pluralism version Decision - Solely within state Public sector dominant Co: between three More open, societal More open, societal Easy and making - Interaction with society only State controls access partitite partners have almost partners have almost veto noncontroversial versus to facilitate implementation and influence veto over decisions over decisions pursuing selfinterest and Segmented because of Plu: slower, more actors lowest common clientelistic Clie: étatiste model denominator relationships almost but more bargaining Goal selection Goals are more consistent Interest groups State determined Plu: State determined State determined Open to social actors Goals relate to development and compete to be on (ministers & prime (minister level) (political leaders that are But could be segmented social transformation political agenda minister) Societal actors more social actors and Imposed on society by Societal actors reactive involved members of state). government Resource Co: economic Plu: bargaining over Clie: use public purse to Public and private funds Mobilization management substantive issues sustain positions actors Accountabilty? Implementation Own bureaucracy Primarily public but Not the focus generally Not the focus generally Not the focus generally Implementation Authority and control also private sector Co: central agencies Plu: involve non-gov. Clie: not a big concern, intertwined with Limited popular involvement involved actors supress feedback decision-making When an actor is (delegation and involved: much power decentralization) Evaluation State tends to do this Segmentation so Co: less coherence in Plu: less coherence in Clie: not really valued Delegation so feedback and Careful use of authority and learning easy and outcomes, but more outcomes, but more accountability important learning monetary resources largely done with inclusiveness and inclusiveness and sector experts adaptability. Less adaptability. Less Feedback difficult Broad lessons limited enforcement enforcement Evaluatory Remarks - No real case is perfect manifestation of either model - Countries may have more than one model - Different governing styles in different policy areas - Model can neither predict nature of policies selected nor their success New Public Governance - Core: attempt to eject corporate values, objectives and practices into public sector - Universal themes on relationship between government and society o Productivity o Marketization o Service orientation o Decentralization o Policy o Accountability - NPM is result orientated, considers citizens as customers, manager gets key role NPM and its critiques However, NPM as theory challenged: - Key assumptions seem to not empirically hold - Need for more sustained, rigourous, empirical research to validate assumptions (Meier & O’Toole, 2009) (1) NPM not as dominant as most of us think (Pollitt, van Thiel & Homburg, 2007) (2) - NPM was not global or absolute and often unsuccesfull - Rise of countries/parts of world where NPM is less dominant NPM and its alternatives Public service motivation (van Loon & Noordegraaf, 2014) (1) - NPM is not what professionals substantively want - Undermines work professional (e.g. loss of autonomy, pride and craftmanship) as it focuses on numbers and output - NPM results in alienation from public values and service motivation - Public service motivation argues that professionals are driven by instrumental, affective and normative aspects Political control of bureaucracy Key question: Does the bureaucracy comply with the law and with the preferences of lawmakers or elected executives? = matters of compliance or responsiveness. - Dichotomy politics and administration (assumption 1) - Politics does and should control administration (assumption 2) (= deny bureaucracy latitude & distrust of administrative power) Traditional (and normative): - POLITICS for ENDS - ADMINISTRATION for MEANS Looks at what politicians and bureaucracy do and how they relate to each other But many other MODELS: Sub theories account for bureaucratic behaviour and roles that are not prescribed by elected officials 1. Bureaucratic capture By industries, iron triangles, policy elites (do not hold empirically…) 2. Client responsiveness/street-level bureaucracy ‘Client responsiveness / street-level bureaucracy’ Lipsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX1IivgPspA Basics: - slb’s in direct interaction - with discretion and impact on policy execution, - and therefore direct consequences for citizens Position SLB brings dilemmas / coping - Reduce uncertainty by keeping distance, autonomy, expertise and symbols Acency Theory Principal=politics Agent=administration But: bureaucratic responses to political control the norm and organizational matters Over time, politicians and administration have different levels of influence over each other, depending on relative expertise, information, monitoring and resources - Seeks to explain the policy making role of administration and bureaucracy (power). - Administration is not a technical, value-neutral activity - No dichotomy - Administration is politics (and should be) Allisons Paradigm - Examines decision-making in executive branch - Key question: How is policy made and who influences it? (governmental behaviour) - Key contribution: government decisions were product of bargaining and negotiation among interested political actors - 3 theoretical models Model 1: rational actor: - governmental decisions by looking at actors who strive to maximize self-interest. - Maximize benefits and minimizes costs of alternatives Model 2: organizational routines: - different actors involved in decision-making and this process is done through standard operating procedures. - Organizational routines important when problems occur Model 3: bureaucratic politics: (most important here) Key contribution: - decisions are result of bargaining and compromising between actors in executive branch !!! Basics: - Who plays? - Where do they stand (sit)? - (different organisations, differ perceptions on problem and solutions) - How are different stand’s aggregated into decisions and actions? - Crucial: power position within the field (determine goals) Assumptions: - Numerous organizations and individuals with own objectives/agenda make up executive branch - No actor in executive branch acts alone - Final decision as result of bargaining and compromise - Difference between policy making and those carrying it out. - Implementation done by someone else who also needs to make decisions and acts on standard operating procedures Wilson: why do bureaucracies what they do? Assumption: - Bureaucrats are motivated by goals and have discretion in decision-making Behaviour of bureaucracy influenced by: - Situational imperatives, expectation others, professional values, ideologies, personality of organizations Successful bureaucracies: - Clear mission - Derived tasks to achieve mission - Divide authority based on tasks - Define clear goals and provide autonomy for SLB to achieve goals Theory of representative Bureaucracy Key question: - how to legitimize political power of bureaucracy in context of democratic values? - Civil servants have power but not elected Assumption: - Civil servants are rational actors that pursue own interst in line with individual values Central finding: - If bureaucracy represents society then they will respond with their discretionary powers to all calls of society But then why/how? Do civil servants reflect the interests and values of society? Three forms of representation: 1. Passive: bureaucracy matches race, ethnicity, sex distribution of society > socialization > indirect evidence of reflecting society 2. Active: passive not enough, there also needs to be link between policy outcomes bureaucracy and values/interests society 3. Symbolic: in eyes of citizens, bureaucrats are representative of and legitimate for society when it shares experiences or characteristics of society. Matter of perception - Governance on national levels can be organized in several ways and relate to four ideal types - Apart from that, NPM was one of primary doctrines in designing state level governance - Also look at interaction between politicians and bureaucracy in order to better understand national level governance - In order to understand national level governance, we also need to look at political role of civil servants - They too distribute values, take decisions and have agency, not just technical - Bureaucracy is thus politics (and this is how it should be (?)) - How would you apply these theoretical models in research? ➔ Theories in 3/4 sentences and anwenden! LECTURE 4 Multi-Level Governance Focus on national level governance 01. Can you describe the four ideal types of governance? 02. What is New Public Governance and how does it play out at the national level? 03. Do you get the gist of Political Control of Bureaucracy and Bureaucratic Politics? Focus on multilevel governance 1. From public administration to (European) political science; 2. Dispersed and pluralistic policy-making activities by multiple actors, from supranational to local level; 3. Bird’s eye view. At the end of todays lecture, students 1. Can explain multi-level governance and distinguish different types of multi-level governance 2. Can compare multi-level governance to intergovernmentalism, including the implications for a functionalist approach to governance 3. Can apply the concept of multi-level governance to an example from practice What is multi-level governance “… a simplified way of understanding what European policy-making looked like on a day-to-day basis in (certain) policy areas, were we to slice the EU down the middle to obtain a cross-section of governance activity.” (Stephenson 2013). From Intergovernmentalism… INTERGOVERNMENTALISM Integration process States ultimate decision-makers; not challenging autonomy State sovereignty Preserved and strengthened by integration Supratational bodies Help improve credibility of yommitments Levels of Discrete: states keep the gat ebetween supranataional and subnational Governance actors Subnational actors Mobilization controlled by states, functioning as sole intermediary with EU Developments in Europe 1. Reform of the Structural Funds (1988): greater emphasis on partnerships with local and regional partners 2. Creation of the single market (1992): proliferation of interest groups 3. Treaty on European Union (1992): desirability of policy action at lowest possible level (subsidiarity principle) …to Multi-level Governance  Fairbass&Jordan 2001 Unravelling of the States 1. States no longer tightly centralized and performing all functions at highest level 2. Increasing importance of subnational levels of decision-making 3. Dispersal and redistribution of powers and competences at these different levels; 4. New roles s for existing and newly-created institutions and bodies (public and private); 5. Moving from government to governance Two types of multi-level governance TYPE 1 TYPE 2 General purpose jurisdiction Task-specific jurisdiction Non-intersecting (static) memberships Intersecting (fluid)membership Jurisdiction at limited number of levels No limit to number of jurisdictional levels Systemwide architecture Flexible design Fairbrass & Jordan (2001); Bulkeley et al. 2003 Simplistic nature of state control and the exertion of authority in a unitary state Bulkeley et al.2003 (Stephenson 2013) Layered system of co-existing levels of authority, complex patterns of transnational, public and private relations, with overlapping competences (Stephenson 2013) Comparison INTERGOVERNMENTALISM MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE Integration States ultimate decision-makers; States as pre-eminent but share power with process not challenging autonomy others State Preserved and strengthened by At best preserved by integration, at worst sovereignty integration diluted Supratational Help improve credibility of Significant autonomy and independent bodies yommitments conception of integration Levels of Discrete: states keep the gat Interconnected: states no longer monopolize Governance ebetween supranataional and links between supranational and subnational subnational actors levels Subnational Mobilization controlled by Mobilize independently and directly; use EU to actors states, functioning as sole outflank states into accepting deeper intermediary with EU integration SUMMARY Referring to interdependence of Signaling the growing interdependence governments operating at between governments and non-governmental different territorial levels actors Concepts that helps to understand pluralistic and highly dispersed policy-making, where multiple actors participate, at various political levels, from supranational to subnational or local (Stephenson 2013) Discuss in smaller groups (5-10 minutes) the implications of multi-level governance (compared to intergovernmental model) for governance functions according to Peters and Pierre (2016) INTERGOVERNMENTALISM MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE Decision Making Goal selection Resource mobilization Implementation Feedback and evaluation Multi-level governance in practice Cities in Global Sustainability Governance 1. Role of cities in Brundtland report (1987); Agenda 21 (1992); 2030 Agenda and SDGs (2015) 2. While shaped by national legal frameworks, increasingly involved at international level 3. Successful in forging connections between citizens, NGOs and private corporations 4. Changed role from traditional governors to facilitators, enablers 5. Emergence of transnational networks and alliances, fulfilling functions like generating knowledge, support funding, set benchmarks and voluntary standards Other concepts: - Fragmentation (public and private actors) - Polycentric governance (actors and autonomy, overlap with type 2) - Institutional Complexity We discussed: 1. Characteristics of multilevel 2. The implications of multi-level governance for the functionalist approach of Peters and Pierre (2016) 3. Example of multi-level governance from the city perspective in global sustainability governance. Learning Objectives 1. can explain multi-level governance and distinguish different types of multi-level governance; 2. can compare multi-level governance to intergovernmentalism, including the implications for a functionalist approach to governance; 3. can apply the concept of multi-level governance to an example from practice 01. What is the essence of multi-level governance, compared to intergovernmentalism? 02. Can you distinguish two different types of multi-level governance? 03. What are the implications for the five central functions of governance? 04. Could you describe the characteristics of multi-level governance in a real-life case? LECTURE 5 At the end of today’s lecture, students: 01. can explain why governance transfers to other levels than the national government; 02. are able to analyze international governance through realist and liberalist lenses; 03. can describe and evaluate EU (climate and) energy governance and policy. Institutional Liberalism Levels of Governance Functionalist Model Five functions of governance, non-linear and regardless of the different actors who perform these 1. Central government no longer exclusive provider of all functions 2. Central government depends more on voluntary cooperation A full understanding (of governance) is not possible without coniderung the degree to which different levels contribute to functions (Peters&Pierre 2016) Shift in institutional Hierarchy Decentralization: Moving functions out of the center of national governements Globalization: Spreading and intensifying economic , social and cultural relations across borders International level: Two important conditions  Efficiency: Collective matters can be resolved more efficiently at international level Democracy: International level is the lowest possible level to resolve the collective matter; Subsidiarity in the EU(!) International Governance in Theory Realism Liberalism 1. Pessimistic view on human nature 1. Potential of human progress in modern society 2. International relations are conflictual 2. International relations are cooperative 3. High regard for national security and state survival 3. High regard for political and economic systems 4. Sceptic about progress in international politics 4. International politics bring peace and prosperity LIBERALISM: Interdependence Liberalism 1. Relations between states not only or even primarily between state leaders 2. There is a host of transactional relations between individuals and groups outside of the state 3. Importance of international organizations increases: for coalition formation and setting of international agendas Institutional Liberalism Providers of Governance (Membership) 1. International organizations o Intergovernmental: government still have formal decision-making power, e.g. UN o Supranational: governments no longer have full control over decisions, e.g. in some parts: EU 2. Transnational organizations: cross-border efforts by hybrid and non-state actors e.g. Amnesty 3. Regimes: set rules that govern state action, without formal organization, e.g. Law of the Sea Providers of Governance (Scope) 1. General-purpose: addressing a range of issue areasd, rather than being restricted to one 2. Issue-restricted: addressing a specific issue area (i.e. energy)  SCOPE General purpose Issue-specific M Intergovernmental United Nations (UN) Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) E World Bank Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) M Group of 20 (G20) International Energy Agency (IEA) B International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) International Energy Forum (IEF) E Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) R World Trade Organization (WTO) S Supranational European Union (EU) - H - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEP) Transnational I Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) P Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) European Governance in Practice EU Energy Governance 1952: European integration started with energy-Coal and Steel Community 1973: energy talk moved away from Brussels to international Energy Agency 1992: Single European Market to liberalize gas and electricity market 2007: Lisbon Treaty providing legal basis for Energy policy 2009: 2020 Climate and Energy package o 20% emissions cuts by 2020 o 20% renewables by 2020 o Binding national targets o 20% improved energy efficiency by 2020 2014: 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework o 40% emissions cuts by 2030 o 27% renewables and energy efficiency by 2030 o Flexible national targets 2019: updated 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework (Green Deal) o 55% emission cuts by 2030 o Climate neutrality by 2050 o 32% renewables by 2030 2023. Most recent amendments (FF55) o 42,5% renewables by 2030, aim for 45% o Targets for MSs in industry, transport and built environment Intergovernmental or Supranational? 1. Liberalization focused on creating a competitive environment, e.g. trough ownership unbundling, networks of European regulations 2. National governments have vigilantly guarded their sovereignty regarding their energy mix 3. Yet successive EU energy and climate regulations made space to autonomously decide smaller EU Energy Policy Instruments Substantive types based on Würzel et al.(2013), Bali et al. (2021), Oberthür et al. (2023) Informational Stimulating learning e.g. disclosure obligations (A-E scale on grocerys) Regulatory using a coercive power of the e.g. law (paint on children’s toys)  Economic Affecting cost-benefit e.g. subsidies calculations Procedual Influencing policy formulation e.g. citizen participation and implementation Energy Efficiency Labelling →informational (economic) - Set up in 1992 improve energy efficiency in the EU - Rating goods (e.g. dishwasher) from A to G - Revised in 2010 and 2017 to keep up with advances in energy efficiency (A+++) - In 2019 79% of consumers considered the label when buying Emissions Trading system →economic - Set up in 2005 to reduce emissions - Cap-and-trade system - First covered power, industry and aviation sector, but will expand to maritime transport, buildings and transportation - ETS revenues support climate relevant innovation fund Renewable Energy target →regulatory - Set up in 2009 with EU target of 20% and national binding targets (REDI) - Revised in 2018 to increase EU target to 32% but abolished national targets after 2020 (REDII) - Revision recently to raise EU target to at least 42,5%, aim 45% (REDIII) Governance of the Energy Union and climate action →Proceedual - Set up in 2018 - Encompassing system of planning, reporting, review and deliberation - Member states required to submit, review and update every five years National Energy and Climate plans - Synchronized with ambition cycles under the Paris Agreement Ambition: - how far the EU is willing to go Stringency: - how binding it is - binding, inforcement system Thickness: - quite thick policy - argue that we have a wicket problem- have a mix of policy Policy integrations: - all relevant sectors are - flanking policies We discussed 1. why governance transfers from central government to other levels of government 2. How governance at the international level can be explained through international relations theories 3. How EU energy governance developed over the years 4. The ambitions, stringency, thickness and integration of EU energy policy Learnings objectives 1. Can explain why governance transfer to other levels than the national government 2. Are able to analyze international governance through realist and liberalist 3. Can describe and evaluate EU (climate and) energy governance and policy LECTURE 6 Guest lecture Water management and climate adaptation at the local level: Comparing midsize citis in the North Sea Region Intergovernmental or Supranational - Identify the ways in which water management and governance is shaped o settings (cities, river basins, countries, sectors, regions) o contexts (political, institutional, economic) - Assess performance o water rights, pricing, decentralization, accountability, integration, participation, etc. - Draw out lessons on what works in which context and why Cities and water Location: coastal cities, cities with rivers, delta cities, landlocked cities… Size: influence on water demand and infrastructural needs Growth: urban sprawl, water-related risks and threats Goals of urban water management - Ensuring access to water and sanitation infrastructure and services, - Managing rainwater, wastewater and stormwater drainage, - Controlling waterborne diseases and epidemics, - Mitigating and adapting to floods, droughts, and landslides, - Preventing resource degradation and pollution in cities (and in their surroundings). Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) Climate change adaption “The process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects.” Incremental adaptation: Adaptation actions where the central aim is to maintain the essence and integrity of a system or process at a given scale. e.g., strengthening flood defences or building new dikes. Transformational adaptation: Adaptation that changes the fundamental attributes of a system in response to climate and its effects. e.g., relocating or stopping human activities in flood plains. Climate extremes and risks in cities Floods, droughts, sea level rise, storm surges, [heatwaves] → water-related Floods in cities Climate threat: heavy rainfall, river flows, sea level rise, storm surges →increased precipitation deficit Exposure and sensitivity: residential areas exposed by low elevation, building in risk areas →drop of groundwater table, increase in soil compaction, damage to (historic) buildings Urban climate governance “The ways in which public, private, and civil society actors and institutions articulate climate goals, exercise influence and authority, and manage urban climate planning and implementation processes” (Anguelovski and Carmin 2011, p.169). - Cities are not homogenous - they are complex and dynamic sites of contested interests, concerns, and powers. - Cities are influenced by actors and arrangements at multiple governance levels (provincial, state, national, and international). - Municipalities have “soft power” to influence higher-level decision-making by mobilizing citizens and organizational actors. - Municipalities may benefit from policies and plans at higher-level governments that provide legitimacy and resources for climate action. Cities’ role in climate change adaption Shifting attention from (inter)national level to city level = Decentralisation of governance, but … - Which resources and capacity do cities need for climate adaptation? - How do cities compare in terms of the resources and capacity they have for climate adaptation? - What is the role of urban water management in climate adaptation? Project objective and partners Overall objective: To demonstrate and accelerate the redesign of urban water management of midsize cities to become climate resilient by following the principles of the Water Sensitive Cities framework Partners: Practice partners: Local and regional governmental authorities from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK Knowledge partners: UTwente, Jade University (Germany), urban climate resilience consultant from Royal HaskoningDHV (the Netherlands) Decision support tool What are the similarities and differences between the phases of the climate adaptation cycle and the five functions of governance (Peters and Pierre, 2016)? Partner cities and pilot measures Example pilot: Pinkeltjesplein in Enschede Theoretical background of CATCH-1: Water Sensitive Cities (WSC) What are the possible relationships among the three pillars Theoretical background of CATCH-2: Urban Water Transitions (UWT) Can cities “leapfrog”? Tailoring the WSC and UWT for midsize cities in the North Sea Region Broader context of NSR - Political, social, ecological, climatic similarities and differences Specific context of midsize cities - Population of 20,000 to 200,000 - Less resources for strategic processes - More connection with their surrounding region and partners - Specific challenges that distinguish midsize cities from large cities o Limited expertise in dealing with climate challenges in an integrated manner o Insufficient human resources to implement a comprehensive adaptation strategy o Low budget and few opportunities for investments in adaptation and mitigation o Limited benefit from climate-related research programs and funding o Less autonomy due to dependency on or limitations by higher-level governments. The co-design and co-production process by project partners Seven partner visits - To understand the water management and adaptation practices in partner cities, to familiarise with the cities and pilot measures, and to collect data for identifying the cities’ specific needs - 49 interviews with representatives from partners and other stakeholders (regional authorities, housing organizations, private companies, NGOs, etc.) - Excursion to the pilot site and other relevant locations Four partner meetings - To create a collaborative, transdisciplinary platform and elaborate on the project progress - At least one session dedicated to the WSC framework and self-assessment - Each practice partner presented their inputs and discussed in plenary sessions and workshops. Document reviews - To generate a comprehensive overview of the policy and practice about climate change adaptation and urban water management in the partner cities, and more broadly in the NSR - Partners’ reports, policy papers, regulations, reports from earlier projects, etc. Steps of self-assessment process Self-assessment tool: WSC tailored for midsize cities in the NSR Self- assessment of seven partner cities From WSC scores to UWT city-states Comparative insights from the self-assessment by seven midsize cities A strong status in all pillars of the WSC framework, but… “Cities as ecosystem services providers” - A common need to identify and value the social, environmental and economic benefits of adaptation measures “Cities as communities and networks” - A common need to mainstream climate change adaptation “Cities as water catchments” - Highest average score among the three pillars - Largest range of the scores  Differences between the cities in terms of the management of data and infrastructure. LECTURE 7 Last week 1. Local governance, particularly urban level 2. Water management and climate adaption 3. How comparative analyses feed into water management and governance Learnings objectives 1. Explain governance failures using the analogy to market failure 2. Analyze governance failures based on real life examples 3. (Dissect the concept of legitimacy 4. Assess the implications of new forms of governance for legitimacy while comparing to traditional forms of governance) -not exam  What is failure? The inability to establish and reach collective goals, and learn from mistakes that are inevitably made (Peters and Pierre 2016) Three types of failure 1. State Failure: “Governments without governance” incapable to provide basic security to citizens (only if the government is the only one to provide it) Other actors or constellations may replace the state to compensate state failure ↓ 2. Governance failure: broader perspectives on governance and the involvement pf a range of actors in governance Two dimensions: capacity (1) to maintain political order and (2) deliver public services ↓ 3. Functional failure: failures may refer to different functions of governing Resource …: Tax, human resources for enforcement issues Implementation: choosing the wrong strategy Feedback: low responsiveness, … Governance Failure Failure and success in not a dichotomy but concerns a continuum: Failure  → success Analogy with market failure Market failures often justify intervention by governments and so categorization of market failures can be used to analyse market failures (Peters and Pierre 2016) Market failure Governance failure Public goods Private goods Non-excludable goods that cannot be priced effectively Difficulties in the provision of private goods: and therefore are provided by government 1. Appropriating public reveneues for private use 2. Producing (public) goods that benefit private interest rather than the public e.g. beach e.g. Soviet Union selling skis instead of basic needs - construction sector in Turkey making plans that don’t benefit society - Employee in Amsterdam Municipality convicted for exchanging building permits for private interests Externalities Internalities Costs of production that are not in the market price Decisions and policies that deviate from allocative efficiency, imposing and which governments can force to internalise costs on society e.g. pollution, nuclear energy e.g. smoking→patients who need healthcare, - Decision to legalize gambling in the NL having adverse effects particularly for vulnerable groups - subsidies for electric cars to reduce CO2 emissions in society, disproportionately imposing costs on certain groups (not affected people are affected disproportionally→benefits intended to be for the whole society) Imperfect information Imperfect information Producers have little incentive to provide the full Difficulties in information processing, or organisational incentives to information if products are defective, which control and withhold information governments must regulate e.g. food labels e.g security reasons, success of operations/negotiations, Nutri score, Rutte deleted text messages  -policy on food labels turned out to provide incomplete incomplete information to the consumers -Dutch prime minister deleting text messages with officials, which according to law should be available to be released on certain grounds Natural Monopolies Unnatural markets Some products are more efficiently provided through Difficulties in recognising the limits of markets, i.e. inappropriate monopolies, which governments either provide or privatization or public monopolies regulate the respective industry e.g. energy distribution e.g.housing market, - healthcare sector in the NL being privatized, becoming too expensive for social groups and putting high pressure on staff Distributional inequalities Disjuncture of costs and benefits Market tends to produce inequitable outcomes for Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, and vice versa citizens, which can be rectified by government through taxation or social programs e.g. e.g. daycare, education/universities, -agricultural subsidies resulting from strong agriculture lobby in Europe, leading to concentrated benefits while costs are diffused on entire society LECTURE 8 Recapping last week Which types of failures were discussed? - State, governance, and functional Which types of governance failure are identified that can be equated to market failures? - Private goods, internalities, imperfect information, unnatural markets, disjuncture of costs and benefits At the end of this lecture, students... - Be able to define and identify various forms of political participation - Be able to explain various causes of varying levels of participation of citizens - Be able to explain how citizen participation can be facilitated in governance structures and explain how you would them evaluate them Why political participation - Less focus on citizens involvement in governance so far - Yet, citizen involvement in governance is one the rise Referendum, Protest, Digital influence, petition Of crucial importance to democracy: - Citizens voice their grievances and let their opinion heard - Hold governments accountable - Let politicians be responsive (Teorell, Torcal & Montero, 2007) What does the rise of political participation mean for governance? Political Participation: what is it? Umbrella concept Definition often used: “Those activities by private citizens that are more or less aimed at influencing selection of governmental personnel and/or actions they take” (Verba & Nie, 1972. p.2) Narrow focus on political actors. Political outcomes also result from non-profit or private actors. Contemporary definition: “Action by ordinary citizens directed toward influencing some political outcomes” (Brady, 1999, p. 737). Minimalist aspects across various definitions: - Actual behaviour - That is voluntary - By citizens - Located in sphere of government/ state and politics (van Deth, 2014) Political participation: modes Political participation: typology  most control Least control Advise Political participation: the governance challenge Individual level participation in politics is not equal Often usual suspects present: Academic degree omnipresent, Male, Older, White Bad for (outcomes) of democracy and its processes? → Reflect! Political participation: determinants Individual resources: time, income, gender and education Dissatisfaction: personal and political Mobilization: social organizations as schools for democracy Values and orientations: post-materialistic value or ideological orientations Political Participation via democratic innovation Signs of democratic malaise → Democratic innovations Including: Definition - Decline in voter-turnout “New processes or institutions that aim to reimagine and deepen - Citizens often feel not being heard in politics the role of citizens in governance processes by increasing - Unequal citizen participation opportunities for participation, deliberation and influence” (Elstub & Escobar, 2019, p. 11) Dimensions institutionalized political participation Fung (2006): - Participation of public best operates at synergy with representation and administration to yield more desirable practices and outcomes Three dimensions along which forms of participation vary: - Who participate - How participants exchange informationand make decision - Link between discussions and policy or public action Who participates Communication and Decision Authority and power Three dimensions combined: democratic cube Contextual features democratic innovations Democratic innovations: Various families (don’t have to know by heart for the exam) - Mini-publics - Participatory budgeting - Referenda and citizen initiatives - Collaborative governance - Digital Participation Democratic Innovations and democratic cube Democratic innovations: various families in detail Democratic Innovations: Hybrid Options - Advanced forms of democratic innovations to overcome individual drawbacks. - Examples of combinations between instruments: o Deliberation (mini-public) + elected officials+ referendum  o Deliberation + voting + online direct democracy o Review referendum topic and provide voting provide voting brochure for voters via mini- public (Oregon) o Also digital techniques: Example: participation platform with forum and voting possibility Democratic Innovations: Evaluation CLEAR Model (Lowndes, Pratchett & Stoker, 2006) CLEAR Model Contents Can do Resources, information and knowledge Like to Do people want to participate? Enabled to Networks to participate Asked to Mobilization and awareness Responded to Action and implemention Various other assessment criteria: 1. Smith’s (2009) democratic goods: a) Inclusiveness b) Popular control c) Considered judgement d) Transparency 2. Hendriks (2022) To also think about: - Pre-determined goals of participation important for design choices and outcome - Friction of participatory democracy instruments with representative logic of democratic system - Should everybody participate and does everybody participate? - Are democratic innovations even feasible on large-scale RECAP Democratic innovations act as institutionalized ways for governments to facilitate the political participation of citizens These instruments vary on dimensions and are context dependent They each have their own drawbacks Therefore effective combinations are sought after including the European Conference on the future of Europe Notes: Shadow of hierarchy state says you do this for us , state delegates Shadow of society (church, when state cannot provide ) Shadow of the market (esp. failed states, Cartel Shadow of expertise