Studying multi-level governance

1. Studying multi-level governance Henk van der Kolk University of Twente

2. The importance oflocal government studies • Practical relevance • Scientific relevance … yet …

3. The poor state of local government studies • No accumulation • Bad theories (‘conceptual frameworks’) • unconnected descriptive single case studies • unsubstantiated claims • Mixing advice and knowledge • As a consequence: low status of the field

4. Four c’s of Van der Kolk • Clarify concepts • Connect research questions • Compare cases • Confine your research

5. How to start? • Clarifying the concept of ‘multi-level governance’ (confusing called ‘theory’).

6. ‘Conceptualizing multi-level government’ Tasks and powers Central state Central state Functional States Regions Territorial Regions Water Control boards Municipalities Municipalities ……. See: Hooghe/Marks

7. ‘Relationships in multi-level government’ Central state Central state Hierarchy States Tasks and powers Regions Regions Municipalities Municipalities ……. Competition or networks

8. ‘Changes in multi-level government’ Europe ‘Europeanization’ Central state Central state Centralization Regions Regions nationalization Privatization/ Outsourcing/ Publ-private/ … Decentralization Municipalities Municipalities

9. Public/organizations etc… Public/organizations etc… Public/organizations etc… ‘A change towardsmulti-level governance’ Central state Regions Municipalities

10. Conceptualization • Dimensions (variables) • Values

11. From concepts to questions • How to use concepts to phrase interesting research questions? • Two common mistakes: • I: Concepts are just used to ‘describe a case (‘we use the idea of MLG as ‘organizing framework’’) • II: Conceptualization is called ‘theorizing’ (we use MLG theory to analyze this case) Concepts Research questions

12. How to phrasea clear research question? • Clarify the units of analysis (especially when studying multi-level governance) • Clarify the main variable(s) you are interested in • Clarify the type of question you want to answer (descriptive, explanatory)

13. Examples of simple, not very interesting, descriptive research questions • Types of government structures: • Which layers are involved in policy area A? • What are the tasks and powers of these layers? • Is policy making territorially or functionally decentralized? • Types of relationships between units: • Is the relationship between various actors characterized by Competition, Hierarchy or Networks? • What does the network look like? • Types of relevant actors involved: • To what extent are non-governmental actors involved in policy area A?

14. How to find ‘interesting’research questions I: Actual problems in government • However, not all problems are worth scientific study II: Scientific claims and studies • However, there is not much ‘accumulation’ in local government studies

15. ‘Even the mere selection of a problem i.e., of a question for worthwhile inquiry, is as a rule no mechanical act but an act of creative mind, and in the most important cases, one of genius. There is no rule of procedure to describe how the creative mind hits on such a question, except that it must be guided by curiosity, inquisitiveness, and independent creative imagination (Brecht 1959: 30-31)’

16. How to phrasean interesting research question? • Connect your question to both social needs and to the existing body of knowledge. • What were the answers given to this question by others? • If it was never asked before, is it worth asking? Why? For who? For what purpose? • What will your research add to the existing body of knowledge?

17. The ‘existing body of knowledge’ in the field of Multi level governance • Descriptive claims; • There is a shift towards from monolithic government to multi level governance (trends) • Explanatory claims; • (If this there is a shift) The shifts in governance are a consequence of social modernization • Some strategies (actions) of governments are more effective (etc.) than other strategies • Some modes of organization (networks/ hierarchies …) are more effective (etc.) than other modes

18. Pitfalls in design • No systematic research design • Inadequate research design • Impractical research design

19. From question to research design • Studying trends, implies studying the same phenomenon at, at least, two points in time. • Studying effectiveness of strategies, implies studying at least two strategies • Studying effectiveness of modes of organization implies studying at least two modes of organization • …. So; compare

20. How can we increasethe number of cases? • By linking a single case study to existing case studies • By studying a case over time (studying change) • By finding relatively independent subunits within the case (policy areas for example) • By just adding cases

21. Yet … confine • Simplify, simplify, simplify

22. Again the four c’s • Clarify concepts (by making units & variables (and their values) explicit) • Connect research questions (to the existing body of knowledge) • Compare cases (even when you are doing a single case study) • Confine your research (to a manageable topic)