See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/48854082

Types of Multi-Level Governance

Article  in  European Integration Online Papers · October 2001

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

108 2,241

1 author:

Liesbet Hooghe
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill & RSC EUI Florence
131 PUBLICATIONS   15,877 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Expert Surveys of Political Parties View project

Theory meets crisis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liesbet Hooghe on 31 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

LES CAHIERS EUROPEENS DE SCIENCES PO.
> N° 03/2002

Types of Multi-Level
Governance

> Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks

 L. Hooghe and G. Marks – Types of Multi-Level Governance

Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po.

n° 03/2002

LIESBET HOOGHE AND GARY MARKS

Types of Multi-Level Governance

Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, Department of Political Science, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
Contact: [email protected] and [email protected]

Citation : Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks (2002), “Types of Multi-L evel Governance”,
Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po, n° 03, Paris: Centre d'études européennes
at Sciences Po.

Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po. – n° 03/2002

 L. Hooghe and G. Marks – Types of Multi-Level Governance

Abstract:

The reallocation of authority upwards, downwards, and sideways from central states has
drawn attention from a growing number of scholars in the social sciences. Yet beyond
agreement that governance has become (and should be) multi-level, there is no consensus
about how it should be organized. This paper draws on several literatures to distinguish two
types of multi-level governance. One type conceives of dispersion of authority to a limited
number of levels. A second type of governance conceives of a large number of functionally
specialized, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. We conclude by specifying the virtues of
each type of governance.

Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po. – n° 03/2002

We know far more about how authority should be exercised than for whom it should
be exercised. Democracy is silent on questions of boundaries. There is far less
consensus about jurisdictional borders than there is about how decisions should be
made within those borders.
Issues of governance have gained the attention of a large and growing
number of scholars in EU studies, international regimes, federalism, institutional
policy analysis, and neoclassical political economy.* On the one hand, decision-
making has spilled beyond core representative institutions to regulatory agencies, or
international functional organizations. Public/private networks of diverse kinds
have multiplied at every level from the smallest to the largest scale. On the other
hand, formal authority has been dispersed from central states both up to
supranational institutions and down to subnational governments.1
One intellectual response has been to stretch well-established concepts over
the new phenomena. Scholars of federalism have applied their approach to power
sharing among as well as within states. International relations scholars have begun
to extend theories of international regimes to diffusion of authority within states.
Another response has been to generate entirely new concepts, such as multi-level
governance, polycentric governance, multi-perspectival governance, condominio,
and fragmegration. 2
Each of these concepts has its own particularities, but all refer to the
dispersion of authority away from central government—upwards to the
supranational level, downwards to subnational jurisdictions, and sideways to
public/private networks. The common evolution of similar ideas in diverse places
can be explained partly as diffusion from two influential literatures—federalism and
new institutionalism.3 But we suspect that it also arises because social scientists are
grappling with a common set of political changes.
Our goal in this paper is not to provide an intellectual history of these fields,
nor is it to evaluate the particularities of the concepts that have been put forward.

*Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the European Union Studies Association in
May 2001; at a conference on “Multi-Level Governance: Interdisciplinary perspectives” held at
Sheffield University in June 2001; at the Weatherhead Center for International Studies, Harvard
University in November 2001; the Workshop for Institutional Analysis, Indiana Bloomington, in
March 2002; and a conference on “Multi-Level Governance and Federalism” organized by the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in March 2002. We wish to thank participants at these
events for comments. Our special thanks go to Ian Bache, Simon Bulmer, Peter Hall, Bob Jessop,
David Lake, David Lowery, Michael McGinnis, Andy Moravcsik, James Rosenau, Elinor Ostrom ,
Alberta Sbragia, Christian Tusschoff, and the political science discussion group at the University of
North Carolina. None of the above are responsible for errors.
1For empirical evidence on decentralization below the national states, see e.g. Garman, Haggard, and
Willis 2001, 205; Hooghe and Marks 2001, 191-212 (appendix 2). For data on governance above the
national state, see e.g. Shanks, Jacobsen, Kaplan 1996; Boli and Thomas 1999.
2We define governance as authoritative rule making. Such rule making encompasses making,
implementing and adjudicating rules. Our focus is on the political realm, that is, on the legitimate
exercise of power, as distinct from governance in corporations, private associations and families.
3 Elinor Ostrom and her collaborators come to a similar conclusion (Gibson, Ostrom, Ahn 2000, 233).
3
Instead, we show that behind the multiplication of terms, lie two sharply different
conceptions of emerging governance in western societies. We claim that these
conceptions are logically coherent, and that they represent alternative responses to
fundamental problems of coordination. We conclude by arguing that these types of
governance have complementary virtues and vices.

Islands of Theorizing
Let us begin by examining the diversity of the intellectual enterprise. Table 1 lists
islands of theorizing that bear directly on diffusion of governance in western
societies.
[Table 1 about here]
Among students of the European Union, the label multi-level or multi-tiered
governance is widely used to characterize dispersion of authority from central states.
It has also entered the daily vocabulary of EU politicians.4 Multi-level governance
initially described a “system of continuous negotiation among nested governments
at [supranational, national and regional] territorial tiers” in EU structural policy,5 but
it has come to be applied more broadly in other policy areas and regimes, and
engages the participation of non-governmental actors, as well as governments, in
authoritative decision making.6 Philippe Schmitter has developed Latinized terms,
consortio and condominio, to describe novel possibilities for authoritative dispersion
in the European Union.7
Reconfiguring authority has been of central concern for international relations
scholars. Work on multilateral cooperation and global governance has sought to
specify the conditions under which national governments are willing to create
international regimes. A classic point of departure is Robert Keohane’s 1982 article in
International Organization, in which he analyzes demand and supply for international
regimes in terms of their capacity to reduce transaction costs and asymmetrical
uncertainty—both of which lead to the under-provision of collective goods.8 More

4 Commission president Romano Prodi has called for “more effective multi-level governance in
Europe . . . The way to achieve real dynamism, creativity and democratic legitimacy in the EU is to
free the potential that exists in multi-layered levels of governance ” (Prodi 2001). In its 2001 White
Paper on Governance, the European Commission characterizes the European Union as one “based on
multi-level governance in which each actor contributes in line with his or her capabilities or
knowledge to the success of the overall exercise. In a multi-level system the real challenge is
establishing clear rules for how competence is shared – not separated; only that non-exclusive vision
can secure the best interests of all the Member States and all the Union's citizens” (Commission 2001,
34-35).
5 Marks 1993, 392.
6Ansell 2000; Bache ed. forthcoming; Balme and Chabanet 2002; Börzel and Risse 2000; Grande 2000;
Héritier 1999; Hooghe and Marks 2001; Kohler-Koch 1998; Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999; Marks 1993;
Marks, Hooghe, and Blank 1996; Scharpf 1994.
7 Schmitter 1996.
8 Keohane 1982; Keohane and Nye 2000.
4
recently, scholars have begun to examine how globalization facilitates the diffusion
of political authority to subnational and international institutions.9 Others focus on
the proliferation of non-governmental actors as partners in international
governance.10 Several IR scholars hypothesize that these developments have led to
the unbundling of territoriality—breaking the umbilical Westphalian cord between
territory and authority. Gerald Ruggie compares the outcome with medieval rule,
with its superimposed and tangled patchwork of overlapping and incomplete
rights.11 James Rosenau argues that national governments are losing ground to
network-type of governance arrangements composed of corporations, non-
governmental organizations, professional societies, advocacy groups, governments,
or combinations thereof. Like conventional government, these SOAs (spheres of
authority) ensure compliance, but they are non-hierarchical, fluid, mostly non-
governmental, and often non-territorial.12
Federalism constitutes a third island of theorizing. Scholars in this field have
sought to specify the optimal allocation of authority across multiple tiers of
government and how governments at different scales interact. Among the terms they
adopt to describe systems of diffused authority are multi-level governance or
government,13 multi-centered governance,14 multiple jurisdictions,15 and matrix of
decision making.16 A normative commitment to the benefits of decentralization—
summarized by Wallace Oates’ Decentralization Theorem—underlies much of this
literature.17
A fourth literature that bears directly on multi-level or polycentric governance
is public policy analysis. An influential starting point is Tiebout’s 1956 article which
establishes the claim that competition among multiple local jurisdictions leads to
more efficient governance. Flexible governance arrangements have constituted the
central research agenda of the Indiana Workshop on polycentric governance for over
four decades.18 Public policy analysts have been concerned also with governance at
the national/international interface. Peters and Pierre argue that there is a
qualitative difference between multi-level governance beyond national borders and

9 Kahler and Lake 2002; Nye and Donahue 2000.

10 Keck and Sikkink 1998; O’Brien et al. 2000; Reinicke 1998; Risse-Kappen ed. 1995.
11 Ruggie 1993, 149.
12 Rosenau 1997, forthcoming. A special issue edited by James Caporaso on “Continuity and Change

in the Westphalian Order” in International Studies Review (Summer 2000) reviews work in these
various IR schools.
13 Courchene 1995; Simeon and Cameron 2000; Wright 1987.
14 Kincaid 2001; Nicolaidis 2001.
15 Oates 1972, 1999; Tullock 1969.
16 Elazar 1987, 1991.
17 Oates 1999, 1122.
18The best overview of the research by the Indiana Workshop is the three-volume collection edited by
long-time collaborator Michael McGinnis 1999a, 1999b, 2000. Two seminal books in this tradition are
Ostrom, Bish, and Ostrom 1988, on American local governance, and Ostrom 1990, on self-governance
for common pool resource problems. For a critique of polycentric governance in the US context, see
Hoogland et al. 1990; Lowery et al. 1995.
5
traditional intergovernmental relations. Multi-level governance, in their view,
denotes that actors are more diverse than under traditional intergovernmental
relations, that networks and ad-hoc negotiations are more important than
constitutions or legal frameworks, and that there is no logical or hierarchical order
between the tiers.19
Finally, neoclassical economists have applied market principles of
competition to the demand and supply of governance. This has led them to
challenge the efficiency of monopolistic, territorially fixed, and nested governments
and to propose instead flexible jurisdictions conceived as “voluntary coalitions for
financing, choosing, and enjoying excludable public goods.”20 Voluntary
jurisdictions arguably minimize rent-seeking and optimize public good provision.
Interjurisdictional competition informs Alessandra Casella’s work on clubs, Barry
Weingast’s market-preserving federalism, Bruno Frey’s FOCJ (functional,
overlapping, competitive jurisdictions), and recent analyses of the number and size
of nations.21

Multi-level Governance as Optimal

These literatures share a basic postulate: dispersion of governance across multiple
jurisdictions is more efficient than concentration of governance in one jurisdiction.
Efficient governance adjusts particular jurisdictions to the trade-off between the
virtues and vices of centralization.22 Large (i.e. territorially extensive) jurisdictions
have the virtue of exploiting economies of scale in the provision of public goods,
internalizing policy externalities, allowing for more efficient taxation, facilitating
more efficient redistribution, and enlarging the territorial scope of security and
market exchange. Large jurisdictions are bad when they impose a single policy on
territorially heterogeneous populations.
Scale efficiencies vary decisively from policy to policy. Economies of scale are
more likely to characterize the production of capital-intensive public goods than of
labor-intensive services because economies accrue from spreading costs over larger
outputs.23 So economies of scale in military defense and physical infrastructure are
far greater than in education. Large-scale jurisdictions make sense for the former—
small-scale jurisdictions for the latter.

19Peters and Pierre 2000; also Peterson and O’Toole 2001. For an application of the concept of
polycentric governance to Europe, see Le Galès 1997, 247f.
20 Casella and Weingast 1995, 15.
21On clubs: Casella and Frey 1992. On market-preserving federalism: Weingast 1995. On FOCJ: Frey
and Eichenberger 1999; Eichenberger and Frey 2001. On size of nations: Alesina and Spolaore 1997;
Bolton and Roland 1997; Hiscox and Lake 2002.
22 Alesina and Spolaore 1997; Marks and Hooghe 2000.
23Oakerson 1999. One speaks of economies of scale when the average per-unit cost of production
decreases as the scale of production increases. In practice, it is extremely difficult to calculate
economies of scale for many public goods.
6
 Efficiency requires that a policy’s full effects—positive and negative—be
internalized in decision making. Externalities arising from a policy to impede global
warming encompass the entire planet, but those involving waste management, water
quality control, nature preservation, or urban planning, for example, are local or
regional. Under multi-level governance, jurisdictions can be custom-designed with
such variation in mind.
An example frequently used to illustrate this logic is street lighting (King
1984). How should one decide on which government level is best for providing street
lighting? A disinterested ruler would determine the optimal scope of authority
taking into account relevant economies of scale and externalities, and then pick a tax
rate to finance the public good in a cost-efficient way. But here a tension between
economies of scale and externalities emerges. On the one hand, if the lamps produce
light for the whole neighborhood, then the ruler should devolve authority to those
living in the neighborhood. On the other hand, public lighting involves considerable
fixed capital costs, including the cost of maintaining a stable energy source, and this
is most likely too expensive for a neighborhood to finance. So the optimal level of
government, considering the relevant economies of scale as well as externalities, may
be the city. But what if not all neighborhoods desire public lighting, or they disagree
on how lighting should be organized?
This raises a second criticism of large-scale government: it cannot
accommodate diverse citizen preferences. Preferences of citizens on street lighting
may differ widely, and if one takes this heterogeneity of preferences into account,
the optimal level of authority may be lower than economies of scale dictate. To take
a more significant example, preferences on cultural and educational policy may vary
sharply across regions within a state, while preferences for macro-economic
stabilization or environmental policy may not.24 In short, multi-level governance
allows decision makers to adjust the scale of governance to reflect heterogeneity of
citizen preferences.25

24Assuming that this heterogeneity can be jurisdictionally captured. For most purposes, this demands
that heterogeneity is territorial, so that groups have a separate territorial government, or that
heterogeneity is socially pillarized, and thus amenable to consociational arrangements. Moreover, the
greater the number of jurisdictions, the higher the informational demands on citizens who are
assumed to fully understand the costs/benefits of alternative jurisdictional arrangements. This
assumption is often unrealistic (Lowery et al. 1995; Hoogland DeHoog, Lowery, and Lyons 1990).
25This is the core virtue of multi-level governance, but there are additional perceived benefits.
Politicians at one level may decide to delegate authority to a different level to facilitate credible policy
commitments. They may do this to tie the hands of their successors, or to tie their own hands. The
provision of credible commitments underlies the functional argument for international regimes; it
also underlies transfers of authority from representative institutions to regulatory agencies,
standardization bodies, and functional associations. Giandomenico Majone argues that European
regulatory capacity has grown because politicians have sought to credibly commit to market
integration (Majone 1998). Finally, multi-level governance arguably facilitates innovation and
experimentation (Frey and Eichenberger 1999; Weingast 1995), though this claim is contested (Gray
1973; Treisman 1999; Cai and Treisman 2001).
7
 Two Types of Multi-level Governance
Beyond the bedrock agreement that efficient governance must be multi-level, there is
no consensus about how multi-level governance should be structured.
• Should jurisdictions be designed around particular communities, or should they
be designed around particular policy problems?
• Should jurisdictions bundle competencies, or should they be functionally specific?
• Should jurisdictions be limited in number, or should they proliferate?
• Should jurisdictions be designed to last, or should they be fluid?
Answers to these questions describe two logically coherent types of governance,
which we depict in Table 2.26 We label them simply as Type I and Type II.27 The first
two attributes capture variation among individual jurisdictions, while the final three
describe systemic properties.

[Table 2 about here]

Type I multi-level governance describes a limited number of jurisdictions at a
limited number of levels. These jurisdictions—international, national, regional,
meso, local—are general-purpose. That is to say, they bundle together multiple
functions, including a range of policy responsibilities, and in many cases, a court
system and representative institutions. The boundaries of such jurisdictions do not
intersect. This is the case for jurisdictions at any one level, and it is the case for
jurisdictions across levels. In Type I governance, every citizen is located in a Russian
Doll set of nested jurisdictions, where there is one and only one relevant jurisdiction
at any particular territorial scale. Territorial jurisdictions are intended to be, and
usually are, stable for periods of several decades or more, though the allocation of
policy competencies across jurisdictional levels is flexible.
Type II multi-level governance is distinctly different. It is composed of
specialized jurisdictions. Type II governance is fragmented into functionally specific
pieces—say, providing a particular local service, solving a particular common
resource problem, selecting a particular software standard, monitoring water quality
of a particular river, or adjudicating international trade disputes. The number of
such jurisdictions is potentially huge, and the scales at which they operate vary
finely. And there is no great fixity in their existence. They tend to be lean and
flexible—they come and go as demands for governance change. Because they are

26 An additional question concerns the role of private actors in authoritative rule making. Do elected

representatives retain ultimate authority over policy making; is governance characterized by shared
rule making through public-private partnerships; or is public governance increasingly substituted by
private governance (Börzel and Risse 2002)? According to some analysts, what sets new governance
apart from conventional government is the shift from governmental action to public-private
partnerships and forms of private governance. While we recognize the significance of distinguishing
between public and private actors, this dimension appears orthogonal to the one theorized in this
article.
27We resist the urge to give proper names to these types and so add additional terminological
complexity to an already complex terminology.
8
designed to handle particular policy problems, they often encompass intersecting
territories.
In the following sections we elaborate a functional argument explaining why
these types co-exist. But first, we describe them in more detail and ground them in
their respective literatures.

Type I governance
The intellectual foundation for Type I governance is federalism, which is
concerned with power sharing among a limited number of governments operating at
just a few levels. Federalism is chiefly concerned with the relationship between
central government and a tier of non-intersecting sub-national governments. The
unit of analysis is the individual government, rather than the individual policy. In
the words of Wallace Oates, dean of fiscal federalism, “the traditional theory of fiscal
federalism lays out a general normative framework for the assignment of functions
to different levels of government and the appropriate fiscal instruments for carrying
out these functions.”28 The framework is system-wide; the functions are bundled;
and the levels of government are multiple but limited in number.29 Type I
governance shares these basic characteristics, but does not necessarily exist only
within individual states. We discuss these characteristics in turn.
General-purpose jurisdictions. Decision-making powers are dispersed across
jurisdictions, but bundled in a small number of packages. Federalists and students of
intergovernmental relations tend to emphasize the costs of decomposing authority
into disparate packages. This idea is especially strong in Europe where local
government usually exercises “a wide spread of functions, reflecting the concept of
general-purpose local authorities exercising comprehensive care for their
communities.”30
Jurisdictions with non-intersecting boundaries. Governments located at the same
level do not overlap with each other. They are separated by durable boundaries.
Moreover, the boundaries of jurisdictions at higher and lower tiers do not intersect
with each other. This extends the Westphalian principle of exclusivity into the

28 Oates 1999, 1121.

29 Traditional federalism studies focus primarily on constitutional federations (e.g. Riker 1964; Wheare

1953; but not Elazar 1987, 1991; Watts 1999). Contemporary work on (fiscal) federalism grapples more
generally with the benefits and costs of centralization vs. decentralization of authority in all countries
with non-unitary rule and beyond the national state (Besley and Coates 1999; Bird and Vaillancourt
1998; Inman and Rubinfeld 1997; Prud’homme 1995; Treisman 1999). Applying categories from
American federalism, several scholars have analyzed the dynamics of fiscal federalism in post-EMU
European Union (Börzel and Risse 2000; Bureau and Champsaur 1992; Burgess 2000; Casella and Frey
1992; Casella and Weingast 1995; Inman and Rubinfeld 1992; Sbragia 1992, 1993; Scharpf 1988; Vaubel
1994; Weiler 2000).
30 Norton 1991, 22.
9
domestic arena.31 The same principle is present in the international arena, where the
United Nations, the WTO, and the European Union encompass national states.32
The key systemic characteristics of Type I governance are as follows:
Limited number of jurisdictions. A major consideration in Type I governance is
that jurisdictions be large enough to carry out multiple tasks. This concern was high
on the mind of local government reformers in Europe in the 1970s. Local
government in Europe was traditionally close to the citizen. As the welfare state
expanded and economic development policies changed, local governments were
increasingly unable to carry out their multiple tasks independently, and sought to
pool resources in collaborative arrangements. Analysts were quick to point at
mounting coordination costs, and called for reducing the number of local
governments through amalgamation.
Limited number of jurisdictional levels. Type I governance organizes jurisdictions
at just a few levels. Among students of intergovernmental relations, it is common to
distinguish a local, an intermediate, and a central level, but the utility of additional
levels of authority is debated.33
System-wide, durable architecture. One does not arrive at general-purpose, non-
intersecting, and nested jurisdictions by accident. Systemic institutional choice is
written all over Type I governance. In modern democracies, Type I jurisdictions
usually adopt the trias politicas structure of an elected legislature, an executive (with
a professional civil service), and a court system. As one moves from smaller to larger
jurisdictions, the institutions become more complex but the basic structure is similar.
Though the institutions of the US federal government are far more complex than
those of a French town, they resemble each other more than they do the Type II
arrangements described below.
Type I jurisdictions are durable. Jurisdictional reform—that is, creating,
abolishing, or radically adjusting new jurisdictions—is costly and unusual. While it
is true that “a well-functioning federal system is . . . always a candidate for
change,”34 such change normally consists of re-allocating policy functions across

31Caporaso 2000, 10; see also Krasner 1999. The boundaries that separate general-purpose
governments are usually territorial, though some general-purpose governments encompass groups
rather than territories. Examples are corporatist governance, the clan system in Somalia, communal
self-governance in the Ottoman empire, religious self-governance in India, and consociational
governance in pre-war Belgium and the Netherlands.
There are a few exceptions. For example, Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, self-governing parts of
32

Denmark, are not members of the European Union.

33In many European countries, the intermediate, or meso, level is a post-WWII institutional
innovation. As Sharpe observes: “What seems to be a near-universal phenomenon over the last
twenty years or so in the Western European state, namely the emergence of an intermediate level of
government between the centre and the basic municipal or communal level . . . The meso constitutes
one of the most important institutional changes in the modern Western state” (Sharpe 1993, 1).
34 Nicolaidis 2001, 446.
10
existing levels of governance. The institutions responsible for governance are sticky,
and they tend to outlive the conditions that brought them into being.35

Type II governance
An alternative form of multi-level governance is one in which the number of
jurisdictions is vast, rather than limited; in which jurisdictions are not aligned on just
a few levels, but operate at numerous territorial scales; in which jurisdictions are
task-specific rather than general-purpose; and where jurisdictions are intended to be
flexible rather than durable. This conception is predominant among neoclassical
political economists and public choice theorists, but it also summarizes the ideas of
several scholars of federalism, international relations, and European studies.
Task-specific jurisdictions. In Type II governance, multiple, independent
jurisdictions fulfill distinct functions. This leads to a governance system where “each
citizen . . . is served not by ‘the’ government, but by a variety of different public
service industries. . . . We can then think of the public sector as being composed of
many public service industries including the police industry, the fire protection
industry, the welfare industry, the health services industry, the transportation
industry, and so on.”36 In Switzerland, where Type II governance is quite common at
the local level, these jurisdictions are aptly called Zweckverbände—goal-
oriented/functional associations.37
Intersecting jurisdictions. “There is generally no reason why the smaller
jurisdictions should be neatly contained within the borders of the larger ones. On the
contrary, borders will be crossed, and jurisdictions will partly overlap. The ‘nested,’
hierarchical structure of the nation-state has no obvious economic rationale and is
opposed by economic forces.”38
Frey and Eichenberger coin the acronym FOCJ (functional, overlapping, and
competing jurisdictions) for this form of governance.39 “Polycentricity” was initially
used to describe metropolitan governance in the United States, which has
historically been considerably more fragmented than in Europe. It is now applied by
Elinor and Vincent Ostrom as a generic term for the co-existence of “many centers of
decision-making that are formally independent of each other.”40 Philippe Schmitter
35 For example, since the creation of the German federal state in 1949, students of German federalism

have argued that the boundaries of some Länder should be redrawn to reflect current policy
externalities. So far, Länder boundaries have been redrawn only in Berlin.
36 Ostrom and Ostrom 1999, 88-89.
37 Frey and Eichenberger 1999.
38 Casella and Weingast 1995, 13.
39 Frey and Eichenberger 1999.
40Ostrom, Tiebout, Warren 1961, 831. McGinnis defines a political order as polycentric “when there
exist many overlapping arenas (or centers) of authority and responsibility. These arenas exist at all
scales, from local community groups to national governments to the informal arrangements for
governance at the global level. . . . A sharp contrast is drawn against the standard view of
sovereignty as connoting a single source of political power and authority that has exclusive
responsibility for determining public policy” (McGinnis 1999b, 2).
11
uses the term condominio to describe “dispersed overlapping domains” having
“incongruent memberships” that “act autonomously to solve common problems and
produce different public goods.”41
Type II governance has the following key systemic characteristics:
Large number of jurisdictions. Each collective action problem shared by a group
of citizens can give rise to a new jurisdiction. So the number of jurisdictions tends to
be much larger than under Type I governance.
One area where one finds a multiplicity of Type II jurisdictions is in densely
populated frontier regions in North America and Western Europe. Ad-hoc, problem-
driven jurisdictions in the form of inter-regional commissions, task forces, and inter-
city agencies have mushroomed over the past three decades. In the Upper Rhine
Valley, for example, the Swiss cantons of Basel-Land and Basel-Stadt, the French
département Haut Rhin, and the German district Basel-Stadt have developed a wide
range of trans-national jurisdictions, involving meetings of regional government
leaders, a regional council of parliamentary representatives, a conference of city
mayors, boards of regional planners, associations of local authorities, agricultural
associations, chambers of commerce, cooperation projects among universities, joint
research projects on regional climate change and biotechnology, teacher exchange
programs, and school partnerships.42 Dense cross-border cooperation has also
emerged along the Californian/Mexican border and the US/Canadian border.43
Type II governance is also widespread at the local level. We have fairly
detailed data on Switzerland, where Frey and Eichenberger identify six types of
functional, overlapping, competitive jurisdictions that complement or compete with
traditional, multi-task local governments. These communes, of which there are
around 5,000, perform specialized tasks, such as providing local schooling,
electricity, gas, water, or street lighting. In addition, hundreds of inter-communal
associations provide specialized public goods at a larger scale, including for
example, hospitals, nursing homes, or garbage collection. According to the authors’
calculations, there were 178 such associations in the canton of Zurich alone in 1994.44
The closest functional equivalent in the United States consists of the “special
districts,” which, as in Switzerland, have intersecting territorial boundaries and
perform specific tasks. In 1987, Ostrom, Bish and Ostrom counted just below 30,000
special districts (including 20 interstate districts).45 Alongside these special districts

41 Schmitter 1996, 136.

42 Weyand 1996; Perkmann 1999.
43 For a comparison of cross-border cooperation in two West-European and two North-American

crossborder regions, see Blatter 2001. Blatter’s comparison raises the question whether Type II
governance constitutes an institutional equilibrium. He suggests that the answer may be different for
Europe and North America. In Europe, dense crossborder arrangements show a tendency to evolve in
Type I direction. In contrast, crossborder cooperation in North America has remained task-specific,
fluid, territorially overlapping, and dominated by non-governmental actors.
44 Frey and Eichenberger 1999, 49-53.
45Students of polycentric governance trace the prevalence of special districts and other forms of
polycentric governance in the United States back to the conception of federalism anchored in the US
12
are thousands of quasi-municipal organizations, such as homeowners associations
with authority to undertake limited governmental services on their members’ behalf.
In 1987, there were between 2,000 and 3,000 of such associations in the Washington
D.C. metropolitan area alone. Local Type II arrangements in the United States
greatly outnumber the 19,205 municipalities, 3,042 counties and 50 states.46
Many jurisdictional levels. Type II governance is organized across a large
number of levels. Instead of conceiving authority in neatly defined local, regional,
national, and international layers, public choice students argue that each public good
or service should be provided by the jurisdiction that effectively internalizes its
benefits and costs. The result is jurisdictions at diverse scales—something akin to a
marble cake. Students of Type II governance generally speak of multi- or poly-
centered governance, which, they feel, have less a ring of hierarchy to them than the
terms multi-level or multi-tiered governance.
Some scholars conceive of growing Type II governance in the international
arena. A critic of the traditional statist view of governance describes this process as
“fragmegration”—a neologism suggesting “the simultaneity and interaction of the
fragmenting and integrating dynamics that are giving rise to new spheres of
authority and transforming the old spheres. It is also a label that suggests the
absence of clear-cut distinctions between domestic and foreign affairs, that local
problems can become transnational in scope even as global challenges can have
repercussions for neighborhoods.”47 In this conception, there is no up or under, no
lower or higher, no dominant class of actor; rather, a wide range of public and
private actors who collaborate and compete in shifting coalitions. The outcome is
akin to Escher’s famous lithograph of incongruously descending and ascending
steps.
Impermanent jurisdictional system. Type II jurisdictions are intended to respond
flexibly to changing citizen preferences and functional requirements. The idea is
rooted in Tiebout’s argument that mobility of citizens among multiple competing
jurisdictions provides a functional equivalent to market competition.48 In a
subsequent article, Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren put the burden of mobility and
change on jurisdictions rather than on citizens.49 According to Frey, “FOCJ . . . are
flexible units which are established when needed . . . [And] FOCJ are discontinued
when their services are no longer demanded as more citizens and communities exit
and the tax base shrinks ... FOCJ are an institutional way to vary the size of public

constitution (Ostrom 1997; Elazar 1987; Elazar and Kincaid eds. 2000). Analysts of multi-centered
governance in Europe find inspiration in pre-modern theories of federalism. The father of societal
federalism, Johannes Althusius, formulated his ideas against Jean Bodin’s unitary conception of the
state (Hueglin 1999).
46 Ostrom, Bish, Ostrom 1988, 3-12. Also Casella and Weingast 1995; Dowding, John, and Biggs 1994;

Inman and Rubinfeld 1997.

47 Rosenau 1997, 38.
48 Tiebout 1956.
49 Ostrom, Tiebout, Warren 1961; Ostrom and Ostrom 1999.
13
jurisdictions in order to minimize spillovers. A change in size is, therefore, a normal
occurrence.”50
There is no system-wide architecture for Type II governance. The rules that
govern the creation and operation of Type II jurisdictions vary widely. When the US
federal government approved twenty interstate special districts in 1988, it did so on
a case-by-case basis. Each district performs distinct functions.51 In Switzerland, some
local Type II jurisdictions have the power to tax, while others do not, and some
governing boards are directly elected, but others not. The territorial boundaries and
conditions for membership vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.52 There is no
blueprint for Type II governance. Functional need—not community representation—
governs jurisdictional scope and operation.

Task-specificity and impermanence are common features of international

regimes. Type II governance is ubiquitous in efforts to internalize transnational
spillovers in the absence of authoritative coordination. For example, more than 150
environmental treaties have been agreed among states, half of them since 1970.53 The
territorial scale of these regimes varies from global to regional (including
patchworks of non-contiguous territories). Most target functionally specific policy
problems ranging from aircraft engine emissions, climate change, ozone layer
protection, shipment of hazardous waste, to whaling, migratory species, tropical
timber, etc.
A recent count of international governmental organizations shows steep
growth over the past 50 years, from 70 in 1940 to more than one thousand in the
1980s. However, of 1,063 organizations existing in 1981, only 723 survived a decade
later, while an additional 400 or so came into being.54 This fluidity stands in stark
contrast to Type I jurisdictions. A study of American federal bureaucracies found
that two-thirds of federal agencies in existence in 1923 were still active fifty years
later. The mortality rate for Type I domestic bureaucracies is estimated to be five
times lower than for international governmental organizations.55
The European Union combines Type I and Type II characteristics. The basic
structure is one in which authority is dispersed among a limited number of multi-
functional, non-intersecting, jurisdictions from the local to the supranational levels.56

50 Frey and Eichenberger 1999, 18 and 41.

51 Ostrom, Bish, Ostrom 1988, 9.
52 Frey and Eichenberger 1999.
53 Clark 2000.
54 Shanks, Jacobson, Kaplan 1996, 143.
55 Kaufman 1976, cited in Shanks, Jacobson, and Kaplan 1996, 143. There are also a very large number

of issue-specific transnational governance arrangements. Some jurisdictions, such as the World

Business Council for Sustainable Development, authorize self-regulation among firms (Clark 2000).
The two most influential global industrial standardization bodies, the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), do not permit states
as members; they depend on voluntary contributions by firms, industries and professions (Loya and
Boli 1999, 193). Much transnational governance is primarily nongovernmental.
56 Bache 1998; Bomberg and Peterson 1998; Börzel 2001; Jeffery 1996; Keating 1998; Kohler-Koch 1998;
14
European integration has built on existing national states, and their Type I structures
are incorporated in the EU.57 The EU bundles together policy transnational
competencies that in other parts of the world are handled by numerous,
overlapping, and functionally specific jurisdictions. Most EU policies, with the major
exceptions of monetary policy and border controls, have a single unified jurisdiction.
However, some salient features of EU architecture are consistent with Type II
governance: variable territorial jurisdictions as a result of treaty derogations; distinct
governance systems or “pillars” for different policies; the multiplication of
independent European agencies; and the flexibility clause of the Amsterdam and
Nice Treaties specifying the conditions under which a subset of member states can
engage in greater integration. As Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet point out, “the
competencies of the European Union in different sectors (environment, agriculture,
competition ...) are very different . . . Even in the same policy area the decision rules
are variable and ad hoc.”58 Philippe Schmitter regards these characteristics as
defining features of the European polity: “The core of the emerging Euro-polity’s
novelty lies in the growing dissociation between territorial constituencies and
functional competencies.”59

The Coordination Dilemma

The chief benefit of multi-level governance lies in its scale flexibility. Its chief cost
lies in the transaction costs of coordinating multiple jurisdictions. There are, in
principle, two strategies for constraining such costs. The first is to limit the number
of decision levels and the number of jurisdictions at each level while preserving the
benefits of scale flexibility. This is the logic of Type I governance. The second is to
limit interdependence among jurisdictions by carving out numerous functionally
discrete policy areas. This is the logic of Type II governance.
The coordination dilemma confronting multi-level governance can be simply
stated: To the extent that policies of one jurisdiction have spillovers (i.e. negative or
positive externalities) for other jurisdictions, so coordination is necessary to avoid
socially perverse outcomes. We conceive this as a second-order coordination problem
because it involves coordination among institutions whose primary function is to
coordinate human activity.
Second-order coordination costs increase exponentially as the number of
relevant jurisdictions increases. Fritz Scharpf has probed the conditions of
interjurisdictional coordination, and it seems to us fitting to describe this basic
dilemma as Scharpf’s law: “As the number of affected parties increases . . .

Marks, Hooghe, Blank 1996; Sbragia 1993; Scharpf 1988, 1994.

57 National states, according to Alberta Sbragia, “will continue to be central actors” because “the

territorial claims that national governments represent . . . are exceedingly strong.” (Sbragia 1992, 289).
58 Balme and Chabanet 2002, 44.
59 Schmitter 2000, 15.
15
negotiated solutions incur exponentially rising and eventually prohibitive
transaction costs.”60
The simplest way to understand this is to think through the impact of
increasing numbers of players in an iterated prisoners’ dilemma. A two-player game
provides certainty of repeated interaction, and this permits strategies based on tit for
tat to effectively punish defection.61 As the number of actors rises beyond two, it
becomes harder to punish defectors. Free riding is the dominant strategy in the
absence of a leviathan or of countervailing norms that can induce a sufficiently large
proportion of actors to monitor and punish defection. This is, in a nutshell, the
coordination dilemma of multi-level governance.
How can multi-level governance deal with the coordination dilemma? One
strategy is to limit the number of autonomous actors who have to be coordinated by
limiting the number of autonomous jurisdictions. The second is to limit interaction
among actors by splicing competencies into functionally distinct units.
The first strategy underpins Type I governance. Type I governance describes a
limited number of multi-task, general-purpose jurisdictions with non-intersecting
borders. By bundling competencies together, Type I governance gains the benefits of
varying territorial scale while minimizing the number of jurisdictions that have to be
coordinated. Type I governance is bundled multi-level governance.
Type I governance constrains the number of jurisdictions according to the
following design principles:
• Non-intersecting jurisdictions. Jurisdictions at the same territorial level do not
overlap. Non-intersecting jurisdictions limit the need for jurisdictional
cooperation horizontally at any level and vertically, across levels.
• Cascading jurisdictional scale. The territorial scale of jurisdiction multiplies
across levels. Table 3 details Type I jurisdictions in the European Union. The
median population represented in the first level, i.e. NUTS 1 jurisdictions, is just
under four million; that in second level, NUTS 2 jurisdictions, is 1.42 million;
NUTS 3 jurisdictions have a median population of 369,000; the median
population in NUTS 4 is 48,000, and at the lowest level, NUTS 5, it is 5,100.
Cascading jurisdictional scale spreads governance across vastly different scales,
but limits the total number of subnational levels to four or, at the most, five tiers
for the larger EU countries.62
• General-purpose jurisdictions. A logical corollary is that authoritative
competencies are bundled into a small number of extensive packages at each

60 Scharpf 1997, 70.

61 The classic “tit-for-tat” makes minimal demands on memory, and is therefore the simplest strategy
within an extensive family of more demanding strategies that can punish defection under less
restrictive assumptions about incomplete information. (See Lindgren 1991 for an intriguing, but rarely
cited, simulation of this.)
62The NUTS classification “favours regional units of a general character. ... NUTS excludes specific
territorial units and local units in favour of regional units of a general nature” (Eurostat 1999, 27), i.e.
the classification is explicitly biased in favor of general-purpose jurisdictions.
16
 level. Type I governance disperses authority across widely different levels, and
constrains the number of levels by making the jurisdictions at each level multi-
purpose.
• System-wide architecture. The pyramidal structure of Type I governance lends
itself to hierarchical direction.63 Most Type I governance systems are bound
together by a single court system with ultimate authority to adjudicate among
contending jurisdictions.64
[Table 3 about here]
The alternative approach is to limit coordination costs by constraining
interaction across jurisdictions. Type II governance sets no ceiling on the number of
jurisdictions, but spawns new ones along functionally differentiated lines. As a
result, externalities across jurisdictions are minimized. This is an exact corollary to
Herbert Simon’s notion of “nearly decomposable” structures.65 Simon argues that
tasks within an organization should be distributed so that the share of internal
interactions within constituent units is maximized and the share of external
interactions minimized. The idea, applied to jurisdictional design, is to distribute
tasks so that the short-run behavior of actors across different jurisdictions is more or
less independent from that of others, while their long-run behavior is connected only
in the aggregate.
How can decomposability be attained in policy provision? How, in other
words, can one break up policy making into discrete pieces with minimal external
spillover? The following design principles characterize Type II governance:
• Functional specificity. Specific, functionally distinct competencies are hived off,
and insulated. In this way, externalities—and therefore interdependence—among
jurisdictions are minimized.
• Ad hoc, policy-specific, architecture. Type II governance is designed with respect
to particular policy problems—not particular communities or constituencies.
Institutional design—the scope of the jurisdiction, its mode of decision making,
adjudication, and implementation—can thus be adapted to particular policy
problems.
The gist of this line of thinking is that Type I and Type II governance are good
at different things, and co-exist because they are complementary. The result is a large
number of relatively self-contained, functionally differentiated Type II jurisdictions
alongside a smaller number of general-purpose, nested Type I jurisdictions.

63For a comparison of uniform, intergovernmental coordination in federal Germany and

differentiated, loosely coupled coordination in the European Union, see Arthur Benz 2000. Others
discern different modes of coordination within the European Union (Scharpf 2000; Wallace 2000).
64Joseph Weiler argues that even federal systems have a strong measure of hierarchy: “Federal state
constitutions create, always, a vertical hierarchy of a triple nature: a hierarchy of norms which, in
turn, is rooted in a vertical hierarchy of normative authority which, in turn, is situated in a hierarchy
of real power” (Weiler 2000, 2).
65 Simon 1996, 178.
17
 Biases of Governance
The types of governance that we outline in this article frame basic political choices.
Type I and Type II governance are not merely different ways of doing the same
thing. Their contrasting institutional arrangements give rise to contrasting virtues
and vices. We label these in Table 4, and describe them below.

[Table 4 about here]

Biases of Type I governance

• Intrinsic community. Type I jurisdictions express citizens’ identities with a
particular community. Intrinsic communities represented in Type I jurisdictions
are often based in national, regional, and/or local identity, but they may also
reflect religion, tribe, or ethnicity. Such jurisdictions have the virtue of communal
self-government, a good that is independent of citizens’ preference for efficiency
or for any particular policy output.
• Voice. Type I governance is biased towards voice, i.e. political deliberation in
conventional liberal democratic institutions. Type I jurisdictions are determined
in a deliberative multi-issue process in which conflicts are highly structured and
articulated. Rules about rules (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) are decided consciously,
collectively, and comprehensively. Conversely, barriers to exit are relatively high.
Exit in a Type I world usually means moving from one locality, region, or
country to another. Where jurisdictions are designed around religion or group
membership, exit demands that one change one’s identity.
• Conflict articulation. Bundling issues in a limited number of jurisdictions
facilitates party competition and the articulation of dimensions that structure
political contestation, first and foremost a left/right dimension tapping greater
vs. lesser government regulation of market outcomes and, in many communities,
a new politics dimension tapping communal, environmental, and cultural issues.
This promotes meaningful choice for citizens. Type I governance is well suited to
deal with zero-sum issues, i.e. distributional bargaining, because it facilitates
logrolling and cross-issue trading. And because barriers to exit are high, it is also
well suited to provide non-excludable public goods.

Biases of Type II governance

• Extrinsic community. Type II jurisdictions are instrumental arrangements. They
solve ad hoc coordination problems among individuals sharing the same
geographical or functional space. Individuals relate to jurisdictions as members
of fluid, intersecting communities—e.g. as professionals, women, parents,
homeowners, nature lovers, sports fans, shoppers, and so forth.

18
• Exit. Type II governance is biased towards exit. Voluntary membership allows
citizens, or the collective units of which they are members, to exit jurisdictions
when these no longer serve their needs. To the extent that they facilitate entry
and exit, Type II jurisdictions approximate markets. Jurisdictions may be created,
deleted, or adjusted through interjurisdictional competition for citizens’
participation or dues. Constitutional engineering is, therefore, a spontaneous
process rather than a collective enterprise. Voice is secondary. The narrow focus
of Type II jurisdictions concentrates the costs of liberal democratic institutions
within small constituencies. Deliberation is focused on the production of a
particular public good rather than on broader value choices.66
• Conflict avoidance. By decomposing decision making into jurisdictions with
limited externalities, Type II governance insulates decision making from other,
potentially contradictory, issues. This jurisdictional fragmentation raises the bar
for articulating ideological conflict, but it concentrates the mind on improving
efficiency within existing jurisdictional bounds. Type II jurisdictions are well
suited for decisions characterized by a search for pareto-optimality.
Type I and Type II governance are not ethically equivalent. They embody
contrasting visions of collective decision making. Type I jurisdictions are suited to
political deliberation about basic value choices in a society: who gets what, when,
and how. Because Type I governance bundles decision making in a limited number
of jurisdictions at a few levels, it reaps economies of scale in translating citizen
preferences into policy. Type I jurisdictions are at the heart of democratic elections,
party systems, legislatures and executives. Type I jurisdictions sustain a political
class of professional politicians who mediate citizen preferences into law.
Type II jurisdictions, in contrast, emphasize problem solving. How can
citizens obtain public goods that they are unable to create individually? What are the
most efficient means to public ends? How can market efficiency, based on consumer
choice and competition among producers, be translated into the provision of public
goods? The assumption underlying Type II jurisdictions is that externalities among
jurisdictions are sufficiently limited to sustain compartmentalized decision making.

Conclusion
Political science has had far more to say about how collective decisions can and
should be made than about for whom they can and should be made. In Western
democracies, however, the balance has been shifting in recent years. The question of
how collective decisions should be made has narrowed as liberal democracy gained
exclusive legitimacy in western societies. Debate centers on the merits of alternative
democratic designs. At the same time, questions of jurisdictional design have opened
up as the centralization of authority in states has lost legitimacy. Opportunities for

66
In Governing the Commons Elinor Ostrom describes several common pool resource arrangements
with deliberative-democratic decision making. As Ostrom observes, such jurisdictions tend to become
magnets for solving a wide range of community problems. Once such institutions are in place, it may
be more efficient to add governance functions to an existing jurisdiction than to create a new one.
19
purposeful jurisdictional design have expanded as decision making in Europe and
beyond has shifted from central states to the supranational and subnational levels.
Who should be included in a jurisdiction, and what should it coordinate?
What criteria are relevant to these choices, and what are the implications of different
criteria?
In this paper we clarify these questions and possible answers to them by
marshalling the collective wisdom of political scientists working in several fields:
neoclassical political economy, institutional policy analysis, federalism, international
regimes, and EU studies. One of our goals is to bring into contact disparate
literatures that bear on the same topic. We draw upon these literatures to illuminate
two broadly applicable and logically consistent types of governance that we describe
as Type I and Type II.
These types of governance share one vital feature: they are sharp departures
from the centralized state. However, they diffuse authority in contrasting ways. One
bundles competencies in non-intersecting jurisdictions, each catering to a particular
group or territorial community. This results in a limited number of jurisdictions, and
thereby reduces the transaction costs of interjurisdictional coordination. An
alternative strategy is to disperse competencies among a very large number of
functionally specialized, intersecting jurisdictions. To the extent that the policies
pursued by these jurisdictions are self-contained, so coordination among those
jurisdictions is simplified.
These contrasting types of governance have distinctive virtues. They express
different conceptions of community. Type I governance, composed of durable,
general-purpose, non-intersecting jurisdictions, provides self-governance for
intrinsic communities. It allows for the articulation and resolution of conflict
including on redistributive issues that can tear polities apart. Task-specific,
intersecting, and impermanent Type II jurisdictions, on other hand, are more
appropriate for extrinsic (i.e. flexible, fluid) communities and for achieving pareto-
optimality on positive-sum issues.
While one could imagine worlds in which governance is organized according
to one or the other principle, our hunch is that such worlds would be impoverished,
not least because governance, that is, coordination of human activity, would be
underprovided. The question then becomes how these two types should, and do, co-
exist. We have only touched the surface of this issue, but if we have clarified some
underlying choices facing political architects, we will have achieved our main goal.

20
 Table 1: Against Unitary Government – Concepts
European Union studies: multi-tiered, multi-level governance; network
governance; consortio and condominio
International Relations: multi-lateral cooperation; global governance;
fragmegration; multi-perspectival governance
Federalism: multiple jurisdictions; multi-level government or governance;
multi-centered governance; matrix of authority
Institutional Policy Analysis: multi-level governance; multiple jurisdictions;
polycentric governance
Political Economy: overlapping jurisdictions; competing jurisdictions; FOCJ

21
 Table 2: Types of Multi-Level Governance

TYPE I TYPE II

general-purpose jurisdictions task-specific jurisdictions

non-intersecting jurisdictions at intersecting jurisdictions at all
any particular level levels
limited number of jurisdictions unlimited number of
jurisdictions
jurisdictions organized in a no limit to the number of
limited number of levels jurisdictional levels

system-wide architecture ad-hoc jurisdictions

22
 Table 3: Regional Divisions in the European Union

NUTS 1 # NUTS 2 # NUTS 3 # NUTS 4 # NUTS 5 #

Austria Gruppen von 3 Bundesländer 9 Gruppen von Politischen 35 — Gemeinden 2,351

Bundesländern Bezirken
Belgium Regio’s/ Régions 3 Provincies/ Provinces 11 Arrondissementen/ 43 — Gemeenten/ 589
Arrondissements Communes
Denmark  1  1 Amter 15 — Kommuner 276
Finland Manner-Suomi/ Åland 2 Suuralueet 6 Maakunnat 20 Seutukunnat 85 Kunnat 455
France ZEAT + DOM 9 Régions + DOM 26 Départements + DOM 100 — Communes 36,664
Germany Länder 16 Regierungsbezirke 40 Kreise 441 — Gemeinden 16,176
Greece Groups of development 4 Development regions 13 Nomoi 51 Eparchies 150 Demoi/ 5921
regions Koinotites
Ireland  1 Regions 2 Regional authority regions 8 Counties/ County 34 DEDs/ Wards 3,445
boroughs
Italy Gruppi di regioni 11 Regioni 20 Provincie 103 — Comuni 8,100
Luxembourg  1  1  1 Cantons 12 Communes 118
Netherlands Landsdelen 4 Provincies 12 COROP-regio’s 40 — Gemeenten 672
Portugal Continente+ 3 Commissaoes de 7 Grupos de Concelhos 30 Concelhos-minicipios 305 Freguesias 4208
Regioes autonomas coordenaçao regional +
Regioes autonomas
Spain Agrupacion de 7 Comunidades 18 Provincias + Ceuta + 52 — Municipios 8,077
comunidades autonomas + Ceuta y Mellila
autonomas Melilla
Sweden  1 Riksområden 8 Län 21 — Kommuner 286
United Kingdom Regions1 12 Counties; groups of 37 Groups of unitary 133 Districts; unitary 443 Wards 11,206
unitary authorities2 authorities; districts3 authorities4

Total jurisdictions 78 211 1,093 98,544

Median population 3,883,000 1,418,000 369,500 48,400 5,100

Note: NUTS refers to Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques. Source: Eurostat, 1999.
1Government office regions in England; Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate regions. 2England is divided in counties, plus inner and outer London; Wales and Scotland are divided in groups
of unitary authorities; Northern Ireland is a single NUTS 2 unit. 3NUTS 3 units in England consist of unitary authorities or districts, of groups of unitary authorities in Wales and Scotland, and groups of
districts in Northern Ireland. 4Districts in England and Northern Ireland, and unitary authorities in Wales and Scotland.

23
Table 4: Biases of Type I and Type II
Governance

Type I Type II
intrinsic community extrinsic community
voice exit
conflict articulation conflict avoidance

24
 References
Alesina, Alberto and Enrico Spolaore. 1997. “On the Number and Size of Nations.” Quarterly
Journal of Economics 112: 1027-56.
Ansell, Christopher. 2000. “The Networked Polity: Regional Development in Western
Europe.” Governance 12: 303-333.
Bache, Ian. 1998. The Politics of European Union Regional Policy. Multi-Level Governance or
Flexible Gatekeeping? UACES/Sheffield Academic Press.
Bache, Ian, ed. Forthcoming. Themes and Issues in Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Balme, Richard and Didier Chabanet. 2002. “Introduction: Action collective et gouvernance
de l’Union européenne.” In L’Action Collective en Europe, ed. Richard Balme, Didier
Chabanet, and Vincent Wright. Paris: Presses de Sciences Politiques, 21-120.
Benz, Arthur. 2000. “Two Types of Multi-Level Governance: Intergovernmental Relations in
German and EU Regional Policy.” Regional and Federal Studies 10: 21-44.
Besley, Timothy, and Stephen Coates. 1999. “Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of
Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Analysis.” NBER Working Paper # 7084.
Bird, Richard M. and François Vaillancourt eds. 1998. Fiscal Decentralization in Developing
Countries. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Blatter, Joachim K. 2001. “Debordering the World of States: Towards a Multi-Level System in
Europe and a Multi-Polity System in North America? Insights from Border Regions.
European Journal of International Relations 7: 175-209.
Bolton, Patrick and Gérard Roland. 1997. “The Breakup of Nations: A Political Economy
Analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 1057-1089.
Bomberg, Elizabeth, and John Peterson. 1998. “European Union Decision Making: The Role
of Subnational Authorities.” Political Studies 46: 219-35.
Börzel, Tanja. 2001. Nations and Regions in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Börzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse. 2000. “Who is Afraid of a European Federation? How to
Constitutionalize a Multi-Level Governance System?” In What Kind of Constitution for
What Kind of Polity? Responses to Joschka Fischer, ed. Christian Joerges, Yves Mény, J. H. H.
Weiler. Florence: European University Institute.
Börzel, Tanja and Thomas Risse. 2002. “Private-Public Partnerships: Effective and Legitimate
Tools of International Governance?” Unpublished ms.
Bureau, Dominique, and Paul Champsaur. 1992. “Fiscal Federalism and European Economic
Unification.” American Economic Review 82: 88-92.
Burgess, Michael. 2000. Federalism and European Union: The Building of Europe, 1950-2000.
New York: Routledge.
Cai, Hongbin and Daniel Treisman. 2001. “State-Corroding Federalism: Interjurisdictional
Competition and the Weakening of Central Authority.” Unpublished ms.
Caporaso, James A. 2000. “Changes in the Westphalian Order: Territory, Public Authority,
and Sovereignty.” International Studies Review 2: 1-28.

25
Casella, Alessandra and Barry R. Weingast. 1995. “Elements of a Theory of Jurisdictional
Change.” In Politics and Institutions in an Integrated Europe, ed. Barry Eichengreen, Jeffry
Frieden and Jürgen von Hagen. New York/ Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 11-41.
Casella, Alessandra and Bruno Frey. 1992. “Federalism and Clubs. Towards An Economic
Theory of Overlapping Political Jurisdictions.” European Economic Review 36: 639-46.
Clark, William C. 2000. “Environmental Globalization.” In Governance in a Globalizing World,
ed. Joseph Nye and John D. Donahue. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 86-108.
Courchene, Thomas. 1995. “Celebrating Flexibility: An Interpretative Essay on the
Evolution of Canadian Federalism.” Montreal: C.D. Howe Institute.
Dowding, Keith, Peter John, and Stephen Biggs. 1994. “Tiebout: A Survey of the Empirical
Literature.” Urban Studies 31: 767-797.
Eichenberger, Reiner, and Bruno Frey. 2001. “Enlarging the Union in Europe and Beyond.
Towards Flexible and Democratic Integration via FOCJ.” Unpublished ms.
Elazar, Daniel J. 1987. Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Elazar, Daniel J. 1991. Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal and
Autonomy Arrangements. London: Longman.
Elazar, Daniel J. and John Kincaid eds. 2000. The Covenant Connection: From Federal Theology
to Modern Federalism. Lanham: Lexington Books.
European Commission. 2001. Enhancing Democracy: A White Paper on Governance in the
European Union. Brussels. Available from
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/index_en.htm>. Accessed March 31, 2002.
Eurostat. 1999. Regions: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. Available from
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/ >. Accessed
April 10, 2002.
Frey, Bruno, and Reiner Eichenberger. 1999. The New Democratic Federalism for Europe.
Functional, Overlapping, and Competing Jurisdictions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Garman, Christopher, Stephan Haggard, and Eliza Willis. 2001. “Fiscal Decentralization: A
Political Theory with Latin American Cases.” World Politics 53: 205-236.
Gibson, Clark C., Elinor Ostrom, T.K. Ahn. 2000. “The Concept of Scale and the Human
Dimensions of Global Change: A Survey.” Ecological Economics 32: 217-239.
Grande, Edgar, ed. 2000. Wie problemlösungsfähig ist die EU? : regieren im europäischen
Mehrebenensystem. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Gray, Virginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study.” American Political Science
Review 67: 1174-85.
Héritier, Adrienne. 1999. Policy Making and Diversity in Europe: Escaping Deadlock. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hiscox, Michael and David Lake. 2002. “Democracy and the Size of States.” Unpublished
ms.
Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks. 2001. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration.
Boulder, Col.: Rowman & Littlefield.

26
Hoogland, Ruth DeHoog, David Lowery, and William E. Lyons. 1990. “Citizen Satisfaction
with Local Government: A Test of Individual, Jurisdictional, and City Specific
Explanations.” Journal of Politics 52: 807-837.
Hueglin, Thomas. 1999. Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on
Community and Federalism. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier Press.
Inman, Robert P., and Daniel Rubinfeld. 1992. “Fiscal Federalism in Europe: Lessons from
the United States Experience.” European Economic Review 36: 654-660.
Inman, Robert P., and Daniel Rubinfeld. 1997. “The Political Economy of Federalism.” In
Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook, ed. Dennis C. Mueller. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 73-105.
Jeffery, Charlie, ed. 1996. The Regional Dimension of the European Union: Towards A Third Level
in Europe? London: Frank Cass.
Kahler, Miles, and David A. Lake. 2002. “Globalization and Governance: Definition,
Variation, and Explanation.” Unpublished ms.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1976. Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington D.C:
Brookings Institution.
Keating, Michael. 1998. The New Regionalism in Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. 1982. “The Demand for International Regimes.” International
Organization 36: 325-355.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 2000. “Introduction.” In Governance in a Globalizing
World, ed. Joseph Nye, and John D. Donahue. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution,
1-41.
Kincaid, John. 2001. “Devolution in the United States: Rhetoric and Reality.” In The Federal
Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union, ed.
Kalypso Nicolaidis and Robert Howse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144-160.
King, David N. 1984. Fiscal Tiers: The Economics of Multi-Level Government. London: George
Allen & Unwin.
Kohler-Koch, Beate ed. 1998. Interaktive Politik in Europa: Regionen im Netzwerk der Integration.
Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Kohler-Koch, Beate, and Rainer Eising, eds. 1999. The Transformation of Governance in the
European Union. London: Routledge.
Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Le Galès, Patrick. 1997. “Conclusion: gouvernement et gouvernance des régions—faiblesses
structurelles et nouvelles mobilisations.” In Les paradoxes des régions en Europe, ed. Patrick
Le Galès and Christian Lequesne. Paris: Editions La Découverte, 237-263.
Lindgren, Kristian. 1991. “Evolutionary Phenomena in Simple Dynamics.” In Artificial Life II,
SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, ed. Christopher G. Langton, et al. Redwood City,
Cal.: Addison-Wesley, Vol. X.

27
Loya, Thomas, and John Boli. 1999. “Standardization in the World Polity: Technical
Rationality over Power.” In Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental
Organizations since 1875, ed. John Boli and George Thomas. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 169-197.
Lowery, David, W.E. Lyons, Ruth Hoogland DeHoog, Paul Teske, Mark Schneider, Michael
Mintrom, Samuel Best. 1995. “The Empirical Evidence for Citizen Information and a
Local Market for Public Goods.” American Political Science Review 89: 705-709.
Majone, Giandomenico. 1998. “Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: The Question of Standards.”
European Law Journal 4: 5-28.
Marks, Gary. 1993. “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC.” In The State of
the European Community, ed. Alan Cafruny and Glenda Rosenthal. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner, 391-411.
Marks, Gary and Liesbet Hooghe. 2000. “Optimality and Authority: A Critique of Neo-
Classical Theory.” Journal of Common Market Studies 38: 795-816.
Marks, Gary, Liesbet Hooghe, and Kermit Blank. 1996. “European Integration since the
1980s: State-Centric versus Multi-Level Governance.” Journal of Common Market Studies 34:
341-78.
McGinnis, Michael D. ed. 1999a. Polycentric Governance and Development. Readings from the
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
McGinnis, Michael D. ed. 1999b. Polycentricity and Local Public Economies. Readings from the
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
McGinnis, Michael D. ed. 2000. Polycentric Games and Institutions. Readings from the Workshop
in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Nicolaidis, Kalypso. 2001. “Conclusion: The Federal Vision Beyond the State.” In The Federal
Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union, ed.
Kalypso Nicolaidis and Robert Howse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 442-470.
Norton, Alan. 1991. “Western European Local Government in Comparative Perspective.”
Local Government in Europe: Trends and Developments, ed. Richard Batley and Gerry Stoker.
London: MacMillan, 21-40.
Nye, Joseph, and John D. Donahue eds. 2000. Governance in a Globalizing World. Washington
D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Oakerson, Ronald J. 1999. Governing Local Public Economies: Creating the Civic Metropolis.
Oakland, Ca.: ICS Press.
Oates, Wallace E. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Oates, Wallace E. 1999. “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism.” Journal of Economic Literature 37: 1120-
1149.
O’Brien, Robert et. al. 2000. Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and
Global Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A
Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

28
Ostrom, Vincent and Elinor Ostrom. 1999. “Public Goods and Public Choices.” In
Polycentricity and Local Public Economies. Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and
Policy Analysis, ed. Michael McGinnis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 75-105.
Ostrom, Vincent, Robert Bish, Elinor Ostrom. 1988. Local Government in the United States.
Oakland, Ca.: ICS Press.
Ostrom, Vincent, Charles Tiebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. “The Organization of
Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” American Political Science
Review 55: 831-42.
Perkmann, Markus. 1999. “Building Governance Institutions Across European Borders.”
Regional Studies 33: 657-667.
Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 2000. “Developments in Intergovernmental Relations:
Towards Multi-Level Governance.” Policy and Politics 29: 131-135.
Peterson, John and Lawrence O’Toole. 2001. “Federal Governance in the United States and
the European Union: A Policy Network Perspective.” In The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and
Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union, ed. Kalypso Nicolaidis and
Robert Howse, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 300-334.
Prodi, Romano. “After the Reform: A Future Strategy for Europe as a Whole.” Speech
delivered on the International Bertelsmann Forum ‘Europe without Borders’, Berlin, 19
January 2001.
Prud’Homme, Rémy. 1995. “The Dangers of Decentralization.” The World Bank Research
Observer 10: 201-226.
Reinicke, Wolfgang. 1998. Global Public Policy: Governing Without Government? Washington:
Brookings Institute.
Riker, William H. 1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Co.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas ed. 1995. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors,
Domestic Structures, and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenau, James N. 1997. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier. Exploring Governance in a
Turbulent World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenau, James N. forthcoming. Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1993. “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in
International Relations.” International Organization 46: 139-174.
Sbragia, Alberta M. 1992. “Thinking about the European Future: The Uses of Comparison.”
Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community, ed. Alberta
Sbragia. Washington: Brookings Institution, 257-292.
Sbragia, Alberta. 1993. “The European Community: A Balancing Act.” Publius 23: 23-38.
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1988. “The Joint Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and
European Integration.” Public Administration 66: 239-78.
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1994. “Community and Autonomy: Multi-Level Policy-Making in the
European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 1: 219-242.

29
 Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy
Research. Boulder: Westview Press.
Scharpf, Fritz W. 2000. “Notes Towards a Theory of Multi-level Governing in Europe.”
MPIfG Discussion Paper 00/5 of the Max-Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung in
Köln.
Schmitter, Philippe. 1996. “Examining the Present Euro-Polity with the Help of Past
Theories.” In Governance in the European Union, ed. Gary Marks, Fritz Scharpf, Philippe
Schmitter, and Wolfgang Streeck. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage, 121-50.
Schmitter, Philippe C. 2000. How to Democratize the European Union . . . And Why Bother?
Boulder, Col.: Rowman and Littlefield.
Shanks, Cheryl, Harold K. Jacobson, Jeffrey H. Kaplan. 1996. “Inertia and Change in IGOs,
1981-1992.” International Organization 50: 593-627.
Sharpe, L.J. 1993. “The European Meso: An Appraisal.” In The Rise of the Meso Government in
Europe, ed. L.J. Sharpe. London: Sage, 1-39.
Simeon, Richard, and David Cameron. 2000. In Governance in the 21st Century, ed. B. Guy
Peters and Donald V. Savoie, Montreal: McGill/Queens University Press.
Simon, Herbert. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Tiebout, Charles. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy
64: 416-424.
Treisman, Daniel. 1999. “Political Decentralization and Economic Reform: A Game-Theoretic
Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 43: 488-517.
Tullock, Gordon. 1969. “Federalism: Problems of Scale.” Public Choice 6: 19-29.
Vaubel, Roland. 1994. “The Political Economy of Centralization and the European
Community.” Public Choice 81: 151-190.
Wallace, Helen. 2000. “The Institutional Setting: Five Variations on a Theme.” In Policy-
Making in the European Union, ed. Helen and William Wallace. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 3-37.
Watts, Ronald L. 1999. Comparing Federal Systems. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University
Press.
Weiler, J.H.H. 2000. “Federalism and Constitutionalism: Europe’s Sonderweg.” Harvard Jean
Monnet Working Paper No. 10/00, Cambridge, MA. (2001).
Weingast, Barry. 1995. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving
Federalism and Economic Development.” Journal of Law and Economic Organization 11: 1-
31.
Weyand, Sabine. 1999. “Inter-Regional Associations and the European Integration Process.”
Regional and Federal Studies 6: 166-182.
Wheare, Kenneth C. 1953. Federal Government. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wright, Deil. 1987. “A Century of Intergovernmental Administrative State: Wilson’s
Federalism, New Deal Intergovernmental Relations, and Contemporary
Intergovernmental Management.” In A Centennial History of the American Administrative
State, ed. Ralph C. Chandler. London: MacMillan, 219-260.

30

View publication stats