From environmental policy concepts to practicable tools: Knowledge creation and delegation in multilevel systems
| Author | Jale Tosun,Fabrizio Francesco,B. Guy Peters |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12544 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE
From environmental policy concepts to practicable
tools: Knowledge creation and delegation in
multilevel systems
Jale Tosun
1
| Fabrizio De Francesco
2
| B. Guy Peters
3
1
Institute of Political Science, University of
Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2
School of Government and Public Policy,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
3
Department of Political Science, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Correspondence
Jale Tosun, Institute of Political Science,
University of Heidelberg, Bergheimer Strasse
58, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
Email: jale.tosun@ipw.uni-heidelberg.de
The problem-solving capacity and problem-generating potential of
multilevel systems entail the need for the delegation of authority.
When the problem concerned is about how to put an abstract pol-
icy concept into a practicable policy tool, the choice of the respec-
tive delegation trajectory depends on the policy models or the
policy-relevant knowledge that the respective political levels can
supply. When regarding the European Union (EU) level as the start-
ing point of knowledge creation and delegation trajectories, and
concentrating on transaction costs, policy knowledge and models
generated at the international level provide the most cost-effective
solution. Only when the international level is not able to provide
further policy knowledge and innovation does the EU delegate its
definitional authority, first downward to the member states and
then sideways to EU agencies. We illustrate the plausibility of our
dynamic understanding of multilevel governance by using Environ-
mental Policy Integration as an example.
1|INTRODUCTION
Many policy issues are ‘boundary spanning’and require the coordination and integration of sectoral policies in order
to be solved (e.g., Dommett and Flinders 2015; Egeberg and Trondal 2016; Candel 2017; Tosun and Lang 2017; Trein
et al. 2018). For instance, to promote gender equality, national and international public authorities have developed
‘gender mainstreaming’in order to preside over several policy sectors (see, e.g., Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2010).
Different ministries, departments and agencies are responsible for these policy sectors and pursue different policy
goals. In the attempt to integrate these sectors towards an overarching goal, such as increasing gender equality, the
European Union (EU) as well as other international organizations (IOs) have developed policy concepts such as ‘better
regulation’(e.g., Radaelli 2007).
The ‘translation from rhetoric to action’(Nilsson and Persson 2017, p. 333) of such policy concepts requires the
definition of policy objectives, instruments, indicators, administrative procedures and practice (see, e.g., Hertin and
Berkhout 2003; Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2010; Newig and Koontz 2014) and, consequently, political and financial
resources. In the EU’s multilevel system, the complexity in implementing boundary-spanning policy concepts is
Received: 12 March 2018 Revised: 25 July 2018 Accepted: 7 August 2018
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12544
Public Administration. 2019;97:399–412. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 399
To continue reading
Request your trial