Integration, functional differentiation and problem‐solving in multilevel governance
| Author | Martino Maggetti,Eva Thomann,Philipp Trein |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12595 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
SYMPOSIUM INTRODUCTION
Integration, functional differentiation and
problem-solving in multilevel governance
Philipp Trein
1,2
| Eva Thomann
3
| Martino Maggetti
1
1
Institute for Political, Historical and
International Studies (IEPHI), Faculty of Social
and Political Science, University of Lausanne,
Switzerland
2
Institute of European Studies (IES),
University of California, Berkeley, USA
3
Department of Politics, College of Social
Sciences and International Studies, University
of Exeter, UK
Correspondence
Philipp Trein, Institute for Political, Historical
and International Studies (IEPHI), Faculty of
Social and Political Science, University of
Lausanne, Quartier UNIL-Mouline, Géopolis
4346, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland.
Email: josefphilipp.trein@unil.ch
Funding information
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung
der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Grant/
Award Number: 162832; Université de
Lausanne
Abstract
The European Union (EU) is currently facing unprecedented
challenges to its problem-solving capacity, such as those
represented by pressing transnational crises and by bottom-
up criticisms towards the European integration process.
Moreover, the EU is said to compensate its weak input
legitimacy with an enhanced problem-solving capacity.
However, the notion of problem-solving itself has remained
remarkably vague in the multilevel governance (MLG) litera-
ture. This symposium analyses problem-solving in different
MLG settings. In this introduction, we identify procedural
and operational notions of problem-solving in MLG, and
present a structural framework to guide the comparative
analyses of multilevel systems along the dimensions of
political integration, functional differentiation and decen-
tralization. The contributions to the symposium illustrate
how structural elements of different multilevel systems
shape both the policy-making process and the politics of
problem-solving within these systems. In doing so, they
pave the way for further comparative research.
1|INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FOR THE SYMPOSIUM
The question of how multilevel governance is related to problem-solving has been on the research agenda of political
scientists for some time. In the 1990s, scholars used the expression ‘problem-solving’to denote a mode of policy-
making in the EU which aimed at producing coordinated policy outputs to solve shared problems, such as environ-
mental pollution. This mode was opposed to bargaining, where participating actors pursue above all their special
interests (e.g., Scharpf 1997, 1999; Benz 2000). In the wake of the euro crisis and its aftermath, problem-solving
reappeared more prominently on the public policy and political science research agendas (e.g., Lodge and Wegrich
2014c; Falkner 2016; Braun et al. 2017). However, until today, there is neither a unified understanding of problem-
Received: 8 December 2018 Revised: 22 March 2019 Accepted: 25 March 2019
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12595
Public Administration. 2019;97:339–354. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 339
solving nor an agreement on how the structural characteristics of multilevel governance systems affect problem-solving.
The legitimacy crisis of the European Union, the Brexit process, as well as the current challenges to multilateral interna-
tional institutions put existing multilevel governance structures under stress. Against this backdrop, it is important to
reappraise the problem-solving capacity of multilevel governance. This symposium contributes to filling this research gap,
with special attention to the EU, but including multilevel settings beyond the EU.
The selected articles address the relationship between integration, functional differentiation, and problem-
solving in multilevel governance settings. Specifically, the four contributions discuss how the presence of multiple
and/or intersecting jurisdictions—for example related to the European Union (EU), its member states, regions, and
municipalities—affects the governance of pressing policy challenges. The authors also examine how this structural
variety in problem-solving processes is linked to democratic policy-making. The articles in this symposium start from
the EU as the prototypical case of multilevel governance and then embark on a comparative analysis of different
articulations of the relationship between multilevelness and problem-solving in other contexts. The settings analysed
in this symposium vary in terms of the functional differentiation of the respective multilevel governance system
(Maggetti and Choer Moraes 2018; Tosun and Hartung 2018), such as federal states (Heidbreder et al. 2019) and
international organizations (IO) (Ege 2019). This comparative approach allows for a wide-ranging investigation into
the challenges of problem-solving in multilevel governance settings. In addition, the articles in this symposium make
a conceptual and theoretical contribution to the analysis of multilevel governance: they connect the structural fea-
tures of multilevel settings to different types of problem-solving processes. Therefore, this symposium contributes
to the development of multilevel governance towards a more general theory of policy processes (Tortola 2017),
which also goes beyond the European Union.
In what follows, we first introduce the notions of problem-solving adopted in this symposium. We then hone in
on three structural dimensions of multilevel governance relevant for problem-solving: political integration, functional
differentiation and decentralization. Afterwards, we introduce the various contributions of the symposium, and dis-
cuss how they illustrate the interplay of integration, functional differentiation and problem-solving in multilevel
governance.
2|DEFINING PROBLEM-SOLVING
For the purposes of this symposium, we follow the definition of problem-solving that Maggetti and Trein (2019) put
forward in their article on the dynamics of multilevel governance systems: According to this definition, policy-makers
in charge of formulating, drafting, adopting, implementing, and evaluating policies,
(a) Make policies in the sense of ‘puzzling’(on society’s behalf) as opposed to ‘powering’(Heclo
1974); so as to (b) deal with problems that are perceived important for society by organized groups
and/or by policy-makers themselves (Cohen et al. 1972); through (c) the cooperative production of a
policy output that is expected to be collectively beneficial in making a contribution to solve the policy
problem at stake (Elgström and Jönsson 2000).
The term puzzling was coined by Hugh Heclo in his seminal work on social politics in Britain and Sweden. Therein,
the author argues that,
Policymaking, is a form of collective puzzlement on society’s behalf; it entails both deciding and
knowing. The process of making pension, unemployment, and superannuation policies has extended
beyond deciding what ‘wants’to accommodate, to include problems of knowing who might want
something, what is wanted, what should be wanted, and how to turn even the most sweet-tempered
general agreement into concrete collective action. (Heclo 1974, p. 305)
340 TREIN ET AL.
To continue reading
Request your trial