Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance

Abstract

: Most studies converge on the growth of processes of ‘multilevel governance’ (MLG) in policy making, related to the often combined trends towards supranationalism and regionalism. Such processes are usually analysed under the angle of their efficiency, while their impact on the quality of democracy is neglected. This article first defines the concepts of multilevel governance and accountability, and then identifies the various dimensions of the latter. It further argues that MLG generates novel forms of accountability, but undermines its democratic dimension mainly for the following reasons: the weak visibility of MLG networks, their selective composition and the prevalence of peer over public forms of accountability.

Governing Disasters: Embracing Human Rights in a Multi-Level, Multi-Duty Bearer, Disaster Governance Landscape

“…As submitted by Bache et al (2016, p. 489) but also by Stephenson (2013), MLG scholarship has so far shown (too) little concern for the (negative) implications of such 'complex and de-coupled governance processes' for democratic values and accountability. Papadopoulos (2007) points out that MLG's focus on 'managerial concerns of performance and efficiency' and the increased confederation of actors in diffuse, task-specific governance networks, without a clear overarching public decision-maker, means that the overall governance of important public interests (such as protecting persons in event of disasters) will become decoupled from public (democratic) control and accountability (also Stephenson, 2013, p. 826). When MLG regimes fail, for example due to the poor articulation of different (levels of) duties and responsibilities amongst different actors towards the population concerned-as seems to be the case in disaster governance-, then the question is where do affected individuals go to claim better disaster management, and on the basis of what?…”

Theorising regions through changes in statehood: rethinking the theory and method of comparative regionalism

“…But more substantially, the Europeanisation process has tended to reduce the scope of issues governed through the institutions of representative democracy and the capacity of citizens to mobilise politically to advance alternative agendas. 114 Europeanisation is not a one-dimensional process of pro-capitalist regionalisation, however. Indeed, it has recently been argued that there has been a 'regulatory rescue of the welfare state'.…”

Accountability in Multi-level Governance: The Example of Australian Federalism

“…First, some forms of horizontal accountability certainly apply across jurisdictional boundaries (Michels and Meijer 2008;Papadopoulos 2007;Schillemans 2011). The news media, for example, can investigate and report on the outcomes of joint programs where responsibility is shared between different regimes.…”