Studying multi-level governance

Henk van der Kolk

University of Twente

The importance oflocal government studies

• Practical relevance

• Scientific relevance

… yet …

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

Four c’s of Van der Kolk

• Clarify concepts

• Connect research questions

• Compare cases

• Confine your research

How to start?

• Clarifying the concept of ‘multi-level governance’ (confusing called ‘theory’).

Central state

Regions

Municipalities

Central state

States

Municipalities

Tasks andpowers

‘Conceptualizing multi-level government’

Regions

…….

WaterControlboards

Functional

Territorial

See: Hooghe/Marks

Central state

Regions

Municipalities

Central state

States

Municipalities

Tasks andpowers

‘Relationships in multi-level government’

Regions

…….

Hierarchy

Competition or networks

Central state

Regions

Municipalities

Central state

Regions

Municipalities

‘Changes in multi-level government’

Privatization/Outsourcing/Publ-private/…

Centralization

Europe‘Europeanization’

nationalizationDecentralization

Central state

Regions

Municipalities

‘A change towardsmulti-level governance’

Public/organizations etc…

Public/organizations etc…

Public/organizations etc…

Conceptualization

• Dimensions (variables)

• Values

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

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)

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?

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

‘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)’

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?

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

Pitfalls in design

• No systematic research design

• Inadequate research design

• Impractical research design

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

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

Yet … confine

• Simplify, simplify, simplify

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)