Dynamic multilevel governance for sustainable transformation as postnational configuration

Abstract

Modern societies are increasingly having to cope with profound socio-political transformations, such as the transition from fossil energy production and consumption to more sustainable energy systems. Transformations ignite dynamics, processes, and forces, which induce new challenges for traditional structures and orders because major changes in society and politics are shifting from established manners, customs, and modes of behavior to new norms and values. Transformations cause epistemological uncertainty and complexity and challenge ontological fundaments and ethical convictions. National structures alone are not adequate to the task of handling the corresponding challenges because the capacity of domestic politics and regulations is too weak to achieve eligible political outcomes that can guide and structure transformations. In this light, I argue for a form of dynamic multilevel governance as a postnational configuration that has the capability and power to reform and transfigure institutions, structure and agency, hierarchies, cultural fabrics, socio-technical systems, and infrastructures toward new social and political orders. I theoretically and normatively conceptualize and justify three major governance framework conditions as hallmarks of dynamic multilevel governance, namely inclusiveness, adaptiveness, and distributed and differentiated deliberation. These capabilities produce reflexive authority with transformative and structuring power to tackle transformation issues. My notion of dynamic multilevel governance relies on thoughts in new institutionalism, network theory, deliberative democracy theory, discourse ethics, and different concepts of governance. I combine theory, normative justification, and institutional feasibility.

Keywords:

• dynamic multilevel governance
• transformation
• problem-solving capability
• inclusiveness
• adaptiveness
• distributed deliberation
• differentiated deliberation
• energy
• postnational configuration

Notes

1. Such international institutions could be the International Energy Agency (IEA), representing energy interests of OECD-countries; the Low Carbon Energy Technology Global Platform, an OECD and IEA communication and cooperation vehicle strengthening the development of low-carbon technologies with non-OECD countries; the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). advising and supporting industrialized and developing countries in terms of the introduction of renewable energies; the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, helping to recognize internationally targets relevant to the climate; the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation; the Commission of Sustainable Development, dealing with energy cycles; the G20; the World Bank; etc.

2. For the perspective on affectedness, see Goodin (2007, 2008) and Habermas (1996).

3. This perspective is derived from “the subject-to-the-law principle”, discussed by Schaffer (2008, 80). See also Cohen (1997) and Thompson (2010).

4. This broad definition relates to concepts of adaptability within scholarly work on adaptive capacity and management in the context of institutional and organizational dynamics and governance. See, for example, Armitage and Plummer (2010), Armitage, Berkes, and Doubleday (2007), Brunner et al. (2005), Burton et al. (2004), Folke et al. (2005), Matthews and Sydneysmith (2010), Meadowcroft (2011), Nelson et al. (2007), Pelling et al. (2008), and Smit and Wandel (2006).

5. For a similar proposal of differentiated and distributed deliberation in the context of domestic and global risk governance, see Klinke (2014) and Klinke and Renn (2014).