[1] This situation develops because countries have multiple levels of government including local, regional, state, national or federal, and many other organisations with interests in policy decisions and outcomes.
[2]' Multi-level governance is an approach in political science and public administration theory that originated from studies on European integration.
Political scientists Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks developed the concept of multi-level governance in the early 1990s and have continuously been contributing to the research program in a series of articles (see Bibliography).
Multi-level governance gives expression to the idea that there are many interacting authority structures at work in the emergent global political economy.
The authors of a recent survey of the literature on the structure of government conclude that 'We attribute many of the recent "cutting-edge" theoretical contributions in political science to studies of "multi-level governance"’ and they note that although students of federalism 'considered the current subject matter of their field to be based on well-defined, well rooted and broadly accepted ideas, they were nevertheless open to a new flowering of federal theory as a result of fertilization by these new MLG theoretical developments'.
Multi-level governance characterizes the changing relationships between actors situated at different territorial levels, both from the public and the private sectors.
These treaties are the primary legal basis giving rise to the much wider reaching process of supranational integration as they contain within them the provisions for their implementation.
These legislative-legal instruments: Regulations, Directives, Decisions, Recommendations and Opinions constitute the mechanisms through which the principles of integration stipulated in the treaties are, in practice and over time, applied, disputed and enforced.
The multi-level governance theory describes the European Union as a political system with interconnected institutions that exist at multiple levels and that have unique policy features.
As Laruffa concludes: "It is quite clear that such a model of governance, which is made only by rules without any role for a democratic policy-making process, imposes a de facto limit to on the political rights of the European citizens.
On 16 June 2009 the Committee of the Regions adopted a White Paper on multi-level governance which recommended specific mechanisms and instruments for stimulating all stages of the European decision-making process.
A recent survey counts 32 regional IGOs pooling authority over quite wide areas of policy and which cover all but a handful of states in the world today.
[19] The "vertical" dimension refers to the linkages between higher and lower levels of government, including their institutional, financial, and informational aspects.
Here, local capacity building and incentives for effectiveness of sub national levels of government are crucial issues for improving the quality and coherence of public policy.
These agreements are increasingly common as a means by which to improve the effectiveness of local public service delivery and implementation of development strategies.
[21] In an October 2008 resolution, the European Parliament called on the member states 'to develop as quickly as possible the practical measures set out in the First Action Programme .
In 2009, the United Nations Development Programme released a report, 'Delivering Human Security through Multilevel Governance', which argued that 'the two-level approach to international relations .
In the eyes of its detractors, multilevel governance exacerbates corruption (Treisman 2000), leads to gridlock (Scharpf 2007), engenders moral hazard (Rodden 2006), constrains redistribution (Obinger, Castles, Leibfried 2005), obfuscates accountability (Peters & Pierre 2004), and wastes money (Berry 2009).
It has become increasingly clear that nation-states will be unable to commit to and meet international targets and agreements for offsetting climate change without engaging with the activity of sub-national and local action.
Climate change in cities is tackled here through the shaping of and delivery of services and resources, with additional support aided to local governments from regional and national authorities.
The SNI-WG realizes several activities at global and regional levels including organizing panels at multiple regional and global forums, hosting peer-learning discussions, publishing reports and case studies, along with facilitating technical workshops, webinars and providing advisory Remote Expert Assistance on LEDS (REAL) support upon request.
This process has generated observations, feedback and insights on the potential of the vertical integration and coordination of subnational climate actions to accelerate and scale-up both local and global emission reductions.
Improving coordination and integration between the different levels of authority in a country is critical in determining both national and global capacity to govern climate change.
[40] Thus illustrating even though climate change in cities can be addressed and governed at local, regional, national and international levels, it does not always follow a hierarchical order.
The main difference between multi-level governance and other theories of integration is that it gets rid of the continuum or grey area between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism and leaves in its place a descriptive structure.
The linking of nations through a sharing of capital creates an adhesiveness that deters the escalation of political conflict from reaching a state of war.
On the international stage, political conflict leads to war as a result of perception of potential gains being larger than the opportunity costs.
It is seen by noting that economic ties between participatory nations makes the cost of disruption to the system through the escalation of the political sphere towards war illogical.
To elaborate, the establishment of a supranational institution can be used to set standards for the way cooperating nations run their environmental, industrial, and safety policies.
Nations consent to the terms as they face a common issue of international policy that has to deal with collective-action problems making it nonsensical to attend to by themselves.