1 / 15

RESCALING THE STATE IN FLANDERS NEW PROBLEM OR OLD SOLUTION? A DESCRIPTIVE – CRITICAL APPROACH

RESCALING THE STATE IN FLANDERS NEW PROBLEM OR OLD SOLUTION? A DESCRIPTIVE – CRITICAL APPROACH Caroline Temmerman – research assistant of the SBOV Prof. Dr. Filip De Rynck Prof. Dr. Ellen Wayenberg Prof. Dr. Joris Voets

thi
Download Presentation

RESCALING THE STATE IN FLANDERS NEW PROBLEM OR OLD SOLUTION? A DESCRIPTIVE – CRITICAL APPROACH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RESCALING THE STATE IN FLANDERS NEW PROBLEM OR OLD SOLUTION?A DESCRIPTIVE – CRITICAL APPROACH Caroline Temmerman – research assistant of the SBOVProf. Dr. Filip De RynckProf. Dr. Ellen WayenbergProf. Dr. Joris Voets Policy Research Centre on Governmental Organization - Decisive Governance (SBOV III - 2012-2015) EGPA Conference 2012 – Study Group V

  2. Regionalgovernance in Flanders • Screening of ‘governance’ – arrangements’ (2012): mappingregionalgovernance in Flanders: • “Allformalizedstructuresaimingforconsultation or collaboration, in which more thanone independent organization is involved and with a regional focus” • 2.229 arrangements classified, including: • Policy domain • Goal • Type of governancestructure • Organizational features • Partners • Financial means

  3. Results of the regionalscreening • Regionaldifferentiation

  4. We have a problem • White Paper on the Internal State reform: “aproliferationof structures at the intermediategovernmentallayer” (Flemishgovernment, 2011) • 1990-2012: fastgrowth of numberand types • ‘We have a problem’: • Institutionalfuzziness • Lackof efficiency • Accountability problem

  5. Focus of our paper • Analyzingthisphenomenon: what does ‘governance’ mean? • Explaining: howcanthisgrowth been understood? • Interpreting: is there a policy problemandwhat is the problemthenexactly?

  6. 1 Analyzing • A fourdimensional model of regionalgovernance (Miller and Lee, 2009) • Collaborativegovernance as onepossible form of regionalgovernance

  7. Results of the regionalscreening • Intermediateconclusionsresulting the meta – analysis (1): • Minority of the structure is of a collaborativegovernance type (28% in the Mid-West area) (public – private) • Governancestructures are verymuchspecialized or sectoralized • Both governmental (central – provincial – local) and private and nonprofite actors are responsiblefor the creation of governancestructures, HOWEVER the balancesdiffer and rescaling is partly contingent with regional features and pathdependencies

  8. Results of the regionalscreening • Intermediateconclusionsresulting the meta – analysis (2): • Most of the partnerships are of the service delivery type (mostly as a result of sectoral policies) • Alldimensions of regionalgovernance (Miller and Lee 2011 apply in Flanders • Financial power of the Flemishgovernment in structures of a horizontalnature. = Content related power? • Mixed position of the provinces: bothcentral and local actor • Flexibility of scales (~ FUA)

  9. Analyzing: ourframework (Cfr. Miller and Lee, 2009)

  10. 2 Explainingregionalgovernance • The Flemishgovernmentitself is responsiblefor the rise of new governance arrangements • .. By her role as meta-governor of intermunicipal cooperation • Impact of the decreeon inter-municipal cooperation (2001) on cooperative behaviour of localgovernments • Allocations of grantsiflocalgovernmentswork together (forexample in housingpolicy and culture) • ..By the creation of sectoral decrees, imposing the foundation of top-down regionalgovernancestructures • Eg. Socio-economicdevelopmentagencies • .. Byforcinglocalgovernments to participate in regional cooperation structures

  11. 3 Interpretingregionalgovernance • Recapitulation: 3 mayorpolicy problemsaccording to Flemishgovernment • (1) Institutionalfuzziness • (2) Lack of efficiency • (3) Accountability problem • Basedon the analysis: • (1) Great diversity of activities, with different empirical forms and at different levels of governance • (2) How to measure efficiency? Service delivery vs. joint decision making • (3) Different notions of accountability, linked to the function of the arrangement and dimension of regionalgovernance (see next slides)

  12. Focus on accountability

  13. Accountability in intermunicipal partnership • Accountability lines are clearlydefined • Accountability and democraticproblem is ownresponsability of localgovernments • However, research shows thatinternal management of municipalities is notyetadapted to the evolutiontowards joined-up government • Little interference of localgovernmentalinstitutions (MT, Council, Executive of Mayor and Aldermen) with IMP • Authority of the mandatories is oftennotclearlydefined • Little control over choicesthat are made in the IMP • Little feedback towards the localgovernmentsabautactivities of the IMP

  14. Accountability in collaborativegovernance arrangement

  15. Conclusions • (1) The political discourse should be nuanced • ‘Institutional mess’ is partly created from inside the institutional framework itself • Criteria of efficiency and accountability differ • Mostly service delivery • (2) Debatesabout the organization of the public sector shouldberenewed • NOT rooted in classicaldiscussions of institutionalorganization of the state • BUT usinginsights of network and collaborativegovernance theory • (3) Members of the state shouldrethinktheirroles in the network society

More Related