What Remains Unwritten? Developing a Critical Evaluation of Multi-level Governance and its Futures in Australian Public Policy and Politics

Abstract

This book has a vocation to raise awareness on forms of multi-level governance (MLG) in Australian public policy and associated politics. As an overview of key observations from the conceptual and case study chapters has already been provided in large part in the introduction, this conclusion instead focuses on issues that are yet to be raised.Among the potentially long list of untreated issues, we have elected to focus on three key themes. First, we investigate the counter-evidence to the development of MLG approaches and how, where and when 'nonnegotiable' inflexible approaches to governance across levels are most likely to flourish, using examples from national policy initiatives. Second, we investigate the issue of research practice and methodologies employed in studying MLG processes presented in and beyond this volume, which have yet to be systematically elicited. These two investigations allow us to postulate why certain case studies have appeared in this volume and not MULTI-LEvEL GOvERNANCE 430others, as well as why there is a relatively large gap between the theoretically focused and case study example chapters. It then leads us into a final section of new theorisation to state the conditions -or rather cultures and political value systems -under which different types of MLG systems may appear and be reorganised. We can hence postulate where such systems will likely have the brightest and darkest futures across Australia's public policy and political system, and to what extent future research and focus on specific MLG practice may or may not prove fruitful. Investigating a relative absence of MLGTo understand where there is an absence of MLG in Australia, we return to the definitions of MLG processes provided in Chapter 1 (Daniell and Kay), which we took as being systems of 'continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers' (Marks 1993: 392) where there is not only a vertical dispersion of authority between levels of administration, but also a horizontal dispersion across different sectors of interest and spheres of influence, including non-government actors, markets and civil society (Bache and Flinders 2004; Daniell and Kay). We are thus theoretically looking for governance systems that are controlled by specific actors where there is little to no (obvious) ongoing negotiation about how policy development and implementation does, or will, function. We consider that the most likely places to find such systems are where: (a) negotiations have broken down, reached a stalemate, trust has evaporated or led to a lack of progress that results in a crisis and need for an actor to take urgent unilateral action; (b) the policy issue is so minor that it is of little interest to any more than one main actor; or (c) where one particular actor is so powerful that they do not need to negotiate but can effectively direct or coerce other actors to perform the governance activities they desire.From an analysis of policy sectors in Australia, we have struggled to identify clear examples o...

A diagnostic framework to assess the governance of the São Francisco River Basin Committee, Brazil

“…Alternative dynamics and adjustments to more participatory or collaborative modes of multilevel governance are not unheard of (e.g. Daniell & Mercer, 2017). The elected stakeholder governance model provides power dissemination to the more marginalized stakeholders such as indigenous groups and quilombolas (Oliveira, Salvador, & Oliveira, 2016), but more opportunities are required to integrate the Basin Plan with the federal revitalization program and also incorporate local needs, knowledge, and dependencies into river restoration activities (Andrade et al., 2009; Freitas, 2015; Torres et al., 2011).…”

Evolutions in estuary governance? Reflections and lessons from Australia, France and New Caledonia

“…The internal complexity of governance and the scope of its ambitions often increases over time [36] but also naturally leads to functional differentiation [53]: a process by which multi-level governance system negotiations are broken down into new differentiated subsystems to match contextual needs. However, if this complexity leads to perceived failures of governance in one or more of the subsystems, it opens windows of political opportunity for (sometimes radical) changes to the governance structures and systems of functioning, often purposely reducing or increasing functional differentiation [95,96]. The scope of governance evolution in such complex systems, of which estuaries represent an instance, is then linked to three key factors: 1) the relationships and negotiations between jurisdictions (linked to the discussion on boundary spaces in the last section); 2) actor interests, issues and values (what ought to be managed, by whom, and for what reasons); and 3) power and resources, including knowledge, finance and an ability to capture or develop discourse and effective negotiating strategies.…”

Understanding resilient places: Multi-level governance in times of crisis

“…As such MLG theory seeks to understand the complex array of actors and processes involved in policy making (Stephenson, 2013) operating within ‘a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers’ (Marks, 1993: p. 392). MLG looks across levels (vertically and horizontally) to identify continuously negotiated relationships and power dynamics within a governance territory (Daniell and Mercer, 2017; Hooghe and Marks, 2004; Zürn, 2020).…”