Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications

Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications

Jiirgen R. Grote/Bernard Gbikpi (eds) Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2002

Gedruckt aufsliurefreiem und alterungsbestandigem Papier. Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme ISBN 978-3-8100-3237-9 ISBN 978-3-663-11003-3 (ebook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-663-11003-3 2002 Springer Fachrnedien Wiesbaden Ursprünglich erschienen bei Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2002 Das Werk einsch1ieblich aher seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschutzt. Jede Verwertung auberhalb der engen Grenzen des UrheberrechtsgesetZes ist ohne Zustimmung des Veri a ges unzulassig und stratbar. Das gilt insbesondere rur VervieWiltigungen, Ubersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Table of Contents Seite Tables and Figures... 9 Contributors... 11 Preface... 13 Introduction 1. From Democratic Govemment to Participatory Govemance (Bernard Gbikpi and Jiirgen R. Grote)... 17 1.1. lntroduction... 17 1.2. Democratic government... 18 1.3. Govemance... 20 1.4. Participatory govemance... 23 1.5. Participatory govemance at work... 28 1.6. The territorial dimension... 29 1.7. Sectors and policy domains... 32 1.8. References... 34 Governance: Concepts 2. Contextualizing Normative Standards for Legitimate Govemance beyond the State (Klaus Dieter Wolj)... 35 2.1. lntroduction... 35 2.2. Govemance beyond the state as functional self-regulation... 36 2.3. The normative dimensions of govemance beyond the state... 38 2.4. Conclusion... 48 2.5. References... 49 3. Participation in Govemance Arrangements: 1s there any Reason to Expect it will Achieve "Sustainable and 1nnovative Policies in a Multilevel Context"? (Philippe C. Schmitter)... 51 3.1. Three principle concepts.,... 51 3.2. Three (explicitly) political elements... 57 3.3. The principles for the chartering ofegas...;... 58 3.4. Four principles for the composition ofegas... 62 3.5. Eight principles for the decision-rules ofegas... 65 5

3.6. Five principles for the substance ofegas... 67 3.7. Concluding with some caveats... 68 3.8. References... 69 4. Govemance: A Social-Political Perspective (Jan Kooiman)... 71 4.1. Introduction... 71 4.2. The govemance scene... 72 4.3. An interactive govemance perspective... 75 4.4. Elements of goveming... 80 4.5. Modes ofgovemance... 82 4.6. Orders of goveming and govemance... 86 4.7. References... 94 5. Civic Perspectives on a Democratic Transformation of the EU (Hubert Heinelt)... 97 5.1. Introduction... 97 5.2. The civic sector and regime composition ofpolitical systems... 99 5.3. The general structure ofthe EU regime composition and civic democratization... 105 5.4. Perspectives on the deve10pment of a politic al order of the EU... 112 5.5. References... 118 Governance: Institutions 6. The European Commission: Promoting EU Govemance (Brigid Laffan)... 121 6.1. Introduction... 121 6.2. The Commission as an institution: The dominance ofnetworks... 123 6.3. Generating policy and legislative proposals... 124 6.4. Implementing and managing policies... 131 6.5. Reform... 133 6.6. The Commission and participatory govemance... 135 6.7. Conclusion... 136 6.8. References... 137 7. The Effects of European Integration on National Forms of Govemance: Reconstructing Practices and Reconceptualizing Democracy (Vivian A. Schmidt)... 141 7.1. Introduction... 141 7.2. EU govemance and its differential impact on Member-States... 143 7.3. Institutional change, ideas, and discourse... 148 7.4. France... 151 6

7.5. Britain... 159 7.6. Germany... 166 7.7. Conclusion... 172 7.8. References... 173 8. Regions in Multilevel Govemance Arrangements: Leadership versus Partnership (Michele Knodt)... 177 8.1. Introduction... 177 8.2. The EU as an interactive and comrnunicative system of multilevel govemance... 178 8.3. The impact of European core concepts and institutional change... 182 8.4. Conceptional presence and heterogeneous structure... 183 8.5. Conceptional spill-over and complementary structure... 186 8.6. Regional capacity to interact... 189 8.7. Managing European differences through leadership and participation... 192 8.8. References... 194 Governance: Sectors and Domains 9. Democratising Expertise (Claudia Radaelli)... 197 9.1. Introduction... 197 9.2. Experts or expertise?... 200 9.3. What is the nub ofthe problem?... 203 9.4. The trade-offs of the democratisation of expertise... 204 9.5. What does empirical research show?... 205 9.6. The real issue: The institutional design... 207 9.7. Conclusion... 210 9.8. References... 211 10. Environmental Govemance: From Innovation to Powerlessness (Jacques Theys)... 213 10.1. Introduction... 213 10.2. Govemance, govemability Of govemmentality?... 215 10.3. Democratic govemance as a solution for new environmental challenges... 222 10.4. The pessimism ofungovemability... 229 10.5. Towards a cognitive democracy... 237 10.6. References... 243 7

11. Private Actors in Political Govemance: Regulating the Information and Communication Sectors (Volker Schneider)... 245 11.1. Introduction... 245 11.2. Govemance: From systemic regu1ation to institutional cybemetics... 245 11.3. Private and public contributions to political govemance... 249 11.4. Goveming the information and communication sectors... 252 11.5. Intemal viability and economic regulation... 254 11.6. Control oftechnical risks and negative extemalities... 258 11.7. Private participation and democratic principles... 260 11.8. References... 263 Conclusion 12. Participation and Meta-Govemance: The White Paper of the EU Commission (Jiirgen R. Grote and Bernard Gbikpi)... 265 12.1. Introduction... 265 12.2. Designing the White Paper: On Virtues and Risks of Participatory Policy-Making... 267 12.3. Govemance, Meta-Govemance, and Govemance Failure... 271 12.4. References... 274 8

List of Tables and Figures Seite Table 9.1: Action lines proposed by the working group of the Commission on "Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems"... 200 Table 10.1: Decision making in a stabilized wor1d... 217 Table 10.2: Decision making in a controversial world... 219 Table 10.3: The four dimensions of environrnental govemance... 224 Table 10.4: Ten contradictions of environrnental govemance... 231 Table 10.5: For critic al approaches to govemance... 236 Figure 2.1. The "Cube of Democracy" beyond the State... 47 Figure 4.1. Interactive govemance - scheme of analysis... 76 Figure 4.2. The realm of social-political interactions... 79 Figure 5.1. Sectoral composition of the politic al system... 10 1 Figure 5.2. The triangle of effectiveness, efficiency and legitimicy... 112 Figure 8.1. Does joint problem-solving represent a useful strategy?... 185 Figure 10.1. The "regalian state"... 225 Figure 10.2. Water management by the user's community... 226 Figure 11.1. Evolution of the perspectives of socio-economic order... 247 Figure 11.2. Evolution of govemance in telecommunication and information technology... 255 9

Contributors Berrnard Gbipki is Senior Research Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence where he is engaged in a project on "Democracy Promotion in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa". Among his recent publications are "Contribution a une theorie de la legitimation politique des ordres economiques et sociaux modernes" in: Cultures et Conf1its, 1999, No. 33-34, 173-233. Jiirgen R. Grote is Senior Research Fellow at Konstanz University (Department of Politics and Management). Re has previously held positions at the EUl and at the MZES Mannheim. Re is current1y coordinating a project on "Organizational Change in National Business Associations" which is concerned with problems of Europeanization and globalization. Among his publications are (with 1. Greenwood and K. Ronit) "Organized Interests and the European Community" (London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, 1992). Hubert Heinelt is Professor of Political Science at Darmstadt University. Apart from coordinating the project of which this volume is a product, he is current1y working on different EU policies (like environment and cohesion policy). Among his recent publications are "European Union Environment Policy and New Forms of Governance" (co-editor with T. Malek, R. Smith and A. Toeller) Aldershot: Ashgate 2001, and "Policy Networks and European Structural Funds. A Comparison between Member States" (coeditor with R. Smith) Aldershot: Avebury 1996. Michele Knodt is Assistant Professor at the Faculty for Social Sciences of the University of Mannheim, and Director of the project "Governance in an Expanded Multi-level System" at the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES). She has recent1y published: "External Representation of German Uinder Interests", in: Eberwein, Wolf-DieterlKaiser, Karl (eds.) "Germany's New Foreign Policy. Decision-Making in an Interdependent World" Basingstoke: Palgrave 2001,173-188. Jan Kooiman is Professor of Political Science at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. Ris most recent publications include "Modem Governance: New Govemment-Society Interactions" (editor), London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage 1993; "Creative Governance" (editor), Aldershot: Ashgate 1999. Brigid Laffan is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics, and Director of the Dublin European Institute at the University College Dublin. Among her 11

most recent publications are: "The Finances of the Union" London, Basingstoke: Macmillan: 1997; "Europe's Experimental Union" (with R. O Donnell and M. Smith) London: Roudedge 1999. Claudio Radaelli is Co-Director ofthe Robert Schuman Centre Forum 2002-2003 at the European University Institute in Florence while on leave as Professor of Public Policy at Bradford University in the UK. Re is the author of "The Politics of Corporate Taxation in the European Union" London: Roudedge 1997, and editor of "Regulatory Impact Analysis in Comparative Perspective" (in Italian) Rubbettino 2001. Vivian Schmidt is Professor of Political Science in the Department of International Relations at Boston University. She recendy published (with Fritz W. Scharpf) "Welfare and Work in the Open Economy" 2 vols., Oxford: Oxford University Press. Philippe C. Schmitter is Professor of Political Science at the European University Institute in Florence. Re has held various professorial positions in the United States and Europe (University of California, University of Chicago, University of Paris-I, University of Geneva). Among his recent publications are "Governance in the European Union" (with G. Marks, F.W. Scharpf, W. Streeck) London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage 1996, and "Row to democratize the European Union - and why bother?" Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield 2000. Volker Schneider is Professor of Political Science at Konstanz University where he holds the Chair on Empirical Theory of the State. Re has recendy published: "Private Organizations in Global Politics" (with Karsten Ronit) Routledge 2000, and "Die Transformation der Telekommunikation. Vom Staatsmonopol zum globalen Markt" FrankfurtJM.: Campus 2001. Jacques Theys is Scientific and Vice Director of the French Environmental Institute. Re also acts as Director of the Forward Studies Centre at the Department for Scientific and Technological Research of the French Ministere de l'equipement, des logements et des transports. Among his recent publications are "Environment, Long-Term Governance and Democracy in the 21st Century" (ed.) 3 voi., Germes 2000. Klaus Dieter Wolf is Professor of Political Science at Darmstadt University where he holds the Chair in International Relations. Re is co-director of the World Society Research Group and founding editor ofthe German Journal of International Relations. Ris recent publications include "Die Neue Staatsraeson" Baden-Baden: Nomos 2000; "Civilizing World Politics. Society and Community beyond the State" (co-editor with Mathias Albert and Lothar Brock) Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield 2000. 12

Preface Hubert Heinelt This book is the result of a conference on "Democratic and Participatory Govemance: From Citizens to 'Holders'?" held in Florence in September 2000. The conference which had been organised by Bemard Gbikpi, JUrgen Grote and Philippe Schmitter was part of the project "Achieving Sustainable and Innovative Policies through Participatory Govemance in a Multi-Level Context" funded by the European Commission under the 5th Framework Programme on Research and Development. The project's empirical focus is on specific policy areas - water supply and EMAS (i.e. the EU environmental management and audit scheme) - and takes account of different territariallevels of govemment. The objective is to analyze old and new forms of govemance to identify those being conducive to innovative and sustainable policies which, themselves, are based on the core values of dialogue, negotiation, active citizenship, partnership and subsidiarity. This also implies identifying the conditions that support the creation and maintenance of these forms of govemance. And last but not least, the project also aims at looking out for opportunities of EU intervention to promote these conditions in a way such that participatory forms of govemance can be achieved. Concentrating on participatory forms of govemance ar, indeed, on participatory govemance, we do not share the sceptic al diagnosis of DahI 1994 of "a democratic dilemma" based on "system effectiveness versus citizen participation" (see also Dahl 1989). On the contrary, we argue that effective governance can be a by-product ofparticipation (well addressed by Lindblom 1965; see the introductory chapter of GbikpilGrote). While taking account of the changed conditions for govemability - which are well described in Dahl's work - we acknowledge that forms ofparticipation need to be adopted to various issue-areas and audiences. Furthermore, new forms of participation - or of participatory govemance - that transcend the traditional representative model of democracy have to be conceptualised (see Heinelt, this volume, and PierrelPeters 2000). As mentioned, one objective of the project is to identify conditions supporting the creation and maintenance of these forms of govemance. From an empirical point ofview, the project has selected two policy areas and three countries - Greece, Germany and the UK. This selection was made due to vanous reasons. 13

Both the policy areas and countries are instances of and, hence point to different types of govemance, related modes of interest intermediation and types of actors. EMAS aims at fostering environmental self regulation by companies indirectly controlled by the state and, directly, by the general public. This is believed to lead to a greater involvement of actors (workers, neighbourhoods, etc.) and to more transparency with respect to environmental effects. Water supply, on the other hand, indicates - at least in Great Britain - a shift towards the privatisation of govemance and an exclusion of citizen groups. In some cases, hence, we have to do with a diminution of transparency and accountability. Water supply is an issue potentialiy conceming everyone. This implies an open network structure with unclear boundaries. Besides a rather clear-cut set of ac tors that are officialiy responsible for water supply, the range of stakeholders can be widened depending on the perception, articulation and organisation of interests by citizens. But the way interested citizens are actualiy involved in "goveming" a water supply system depends on their political options for participation. EMAS implies a closed network structure because of being resticted to only few actors with a clear boundary around them - the enterprise level. Participation, hence, is limited a priori. Analysing the case studies should, therefore, aliow us to identify some general conditions eventualiy enabling participatory forms of govemance. In this respect, the different govemance compounds dominating the German, the Greek and the UK cases point to a wide variety of organisational structure and to different forms of social and cultural embeddedness. Policy change has to start by taking account of this variety. On this background lessons can be drawn for EU policymaking insofar as it should be possible to identify procedural and structural conditions that need to be addressed by EU intervention in order to improve participatory forms of govemance. I The task of the govemance conference mentioned in the beginning, and of its contributions now published in the present volume, was to help the project partners to clarify their concepts and, thereby, guide the empiric al research conceptualiy. Although ali the contributions have realiy been helpful in this respect, two of them - those of Kooiman and Schmitter - tumed out to be of particular relevance. lan Kooiman's suggestions apropos three different goveming orders, i.e. first order, second order and meta goveming, offered an excellent starting 14 It has to be highlighted that recent EU legislation is already - intentional1y or not - giving emphasis to such conditions. One examples in our empirical cases being the new EMAS directive (EMAS II; directive 761/2001; 2410412001) in which the involvement of "interested parties" (see annex VI, 6.4.c of the directive and European Commission 2000a) and "employee participation" (European Commission 2000b) are formal1y required. The water framework directive (WFD; directive 2000/60, 22/1212000) also requires mandatory public participation in the planning ofwater resources (Art. 14).

point for clarifying the different forms, meanings and varieties of participation (see the introduction by Gbikpi and Grote). For our empiric al analysis the distinction between the three goveming orders and the resulting links to different forms of participation were quite helpful. Regarding the case studies on water supply and EMAS, meta goveming and different forms of participatory govemance have been addressed by an analysis of the respective EU debates on the water framework and EMAS II directives. Apart from that, the subsequent discussions in the selected countries have been analysed - who is to "govem" water supply and who is to implement and to organise environmental management and audit schemes? Forms of second order goveming have been addressed by analyzing the decisions that ratify different institutional settings and the legal bases of water supply and EMAS on both the national and EU level. First order goveming and the related forms of participatory govemance have been analysed for the water supply cases taking one region of each country (Athens, Frankfurt and London) and, in the case of EMAS, for a certain number of enterprises/sites (at least six per country). Philippe Schmitter's ideas, particularly the ones dealing with the "holder" concept, have equally been very helpful for the empirical analysis. They enabled us to classify govemance arrangements according to the involvement of different categories of holders, to identify changes in govemance arrangements by shifts within the set of involved holders (especially in water supply systems influenced by "marketisation") and to relate the achievement of sustainability and innovativation to the participation of different types of holders. Nonetheless, a number of questions remain open: especially, who should participate and, secondly, how should particular actors participate? What is needed is a justification of entitlements and of forms of participation that are established and underpinned by political authority. In general terms, such justification is presented in Schrnitter's chapter, namely by the design principles for govemance arrangements that are related to their purpose (chartering), their composition and their decisions rules. But his answer to the "question of political design" builds on "the apposite criterion according to the substance of the problem that has to be solved or the conflict that has to be resolved". This implies an approach based on ejfectiveness. In short, all those possessing some quality or resource to solve a concrete problem or to resolve a specific conflict should have the entitlement to participate. 15

Tuming to Kooiman's contribution, this seems to be possible, and plausible, for forms of first order goveming. Alternative orders - second order goveming and meta goveming - are "govemed" by other standards and! or norms than effectiveness - namely by legitimacy and ethics. These latter are not unimportant because the design of forms of participation and of legal entitlements are political tasks in the purest sense - i.e. tasks conceming an intentional, purposeful, potentially interest-related and binding coordination of societal interactions. This does not mean that the justification of participation can only be approached normatively, i.e. within the field oftheory. However, ethical standards for participation have to be developed by public deliberation based on communicative rationality (i.e. by meta goveming), and decisions on particular forms of participation have to be legitimated by second order goveming based on traditional models of "liberal democracy" with its specific features of responsibility and accountability to citizens as voters. To understand the design of forms of participation and of legal entitlements in terms of a political task in the purest sense, and to relate that task to standards of legitimacy and ethics are important things, if it can be assumed that it is participatory govemance that can bring democracy into the wider sphere of policy-making opened up by the shift from govemment to govemance. This is the case because for this to be achieved, ideas and normative presumptions of democracy have to be adjusted to the changed conditions of policy-making and govemability in modem societies. References Dahl, R. A. 1989: Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven/Conn. Dahl, R. A. 1994: A Democratic Dilemma. System Effectiveness versus Citizen Participation, in: Political Science Quarterly 10: 1, 23-34 European Commission, 2000a: Guidance on the Identification of Environmental Aspects and Assessment oftheir Significance (Draft), Brussels European Commission, 2000b: Guidelines of the EU Commission on Employee Participation within the framework ofemas II (Draft), Brussels Lindblom, C. 1965: The InteIIigence of Democracy. Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York Pierre, J.lPeters, B.G., 2000: Govemance, Politics and the State, HoundmiIIs/London 16